MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259724464

An Intimate Approach to Fairness, Impartiality and Reasonableness in Administrative Law

2002· article· en· W2259724464 on OpenAlexaff
Lorne Sossin

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpartialityAdministrative lawObjectivity (philosophy)Adversarial systemObjectificationLawPolitical scienceState (computer science)PoliticsContext (archaeology)SociologyLaw and economicsEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is about the role of personal relationships in the theory and practice of administrative law. At first blush, attempting to link the notion of intimacy with the core doctrines of administrative law might appear an odd project. When administrative decision-makers and those affected by their decisions come together, it is typically for institutional, formal and legal reasons. The focus is not on a personal relationship between these individuals, but on the benefit or burden at issue. These are rarely ongoing relationships and may be completely anonymous (for example, where the decision-maker and the affected party can only identify each other by a reference number on a form). Occasionally, the administrative relationship is mediated by third parties, including social workers, doctors, lawyers, therapists, accountants and guardians, resulting in an administrative relationship with virtually no direct contact. This most impersonal of relationships is reinforced by an administrative culture (and a legal infrastructure) that esteems objectivity and detachment, and by a popular and political culture that portrays bureaucrats as remote, indolent, uncaring and often adversarial. In short, not only would most observers conclude that there is no possibility of intimacy in the administrative relationship, but most would also conclude that it would be far from desirable. In this paper, I argue that the context of remoteness, the alienation and the objectification that characterizes the present state of the administrative relationship has impoverished administrative law. The current ideal of the administrative relationship reflects the belief that bureaucrats must remain detached from the subject of their decision-making and the belief that citizens must not be dependent on the good graces of a particular decision-maker. In other words, the current ideal denies an inevitable and necessary element of humanity in the administrative decision-making process. My goal is to include the personal dimension to administrative relationships, and in doing so, recast the relationship as one of inter-dependency, capable of engendering mutual respect and trust.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207