Class Actions Against the Crown: A Substitution for Judicial Review on Administrative Law Grounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Class actions against the Crown do not fit neatly in existing private law or public law paradigms. Private law liability tends to flow from discrete duties owed to specific individuals or groups, while judicial review at public law is premised on public duties such as the obligation of decision-makers to exercise their statutory authority in a fair and reasonable fashion. Class actions typically are brought on private law grounds alleging discrete duties but in contexts where the decision-makers were exercising broad statutory authority in the public interest. Class actions against the Crown often compel courts to draw artificial distinctions between private and public law paradigms.In this brief article, I wish to explore frameworks that are capable of surmounting this dichotomy Put differently, I am interested in developing approaches to the relationship between class actions against the Crown and administrative law proceedings against the Crown which do not devolve inexorably into private law and public law spheres. This article will argue that class actions against the Crown can only he properly understood as a site of convergence between private law and public law spheres.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".