Adjudicating constitutional rights in administrative law
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines how courts apply bills of rights to administrative decisions. It adopts a comparative perspective, analysing the law in the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand. It is found that the courts in each jurisdiction have taken a different approach in relation to the two central issues – namely, (1) whether courts decide for themselves whether rights have been violated or whether they adopt a secondary reviewing role; and (2) whether bills of rights are used as a means of imposing enhanced requirements on decision makers in terms of how they reach their decisions, beyond common law requirements of relevancy and proper purposes. The article argues that the preferred approach is for courts to decide for themselves whether protected rights have been infringed and for them to protect such rights indirectly through the development of requirements applicable to the process of decision making, targeted at ensuring that administrators reach rights-compliant decisions in the first instance. Procedural requirements, if appropriately nuanced and context specific, need not lead to formalism in decision making. The article develops this model, described as the ‘shared responsibility model,’ and contrasts it with the approach taken by the courts in both Canada and the United Kingdom.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it