Analysis on the Functions of Administrative Law Enforcement Interpretation in China 1 ANALYSES FONCTIONNELLES SUR L'APPLIACTION DU DROIT EN CHINE
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
Abstract: The process of administrative law's application is also the process of its interpretation. Administrative enforcement interpretation has the functions of standardize administrative enforcement, promote the development of the law, make up the bugs of and other functions. These functions complement and supplement each other. Key words: administrative enforcement; legal interpretation; Functional Analysis Resume: Le processus de la pratique du droit administratif est celui de l'application du droit administratif. L'application du droit administratif a plusieurs fonctions, telles que la normalisation de l'application du droit administratif, la promotion du developpement de la loi et la reparation des failles de la loi. Ces fonctions se completent mutuellement. Mots-Cles: application du droit administrative; interpretation juridique; analyses fonctionnelles (ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.) The enactment of the is to apply it. If the purpose of making the is not to apply, then the purpose has gone, hi administrative law, because of the diversity of its source, the complex of its content and structure, and the multi-level of its application, the process of administrative law's application is very complex. The application of administrative needs the help of interpretation to communicate the rules of the with the facts of the case and form an effective conclusion, hi the process of applying administrative law, interpretation plays a big role in connecting rules with the facts, and the value of legal norms with the conclusion of the case. Interpretation is the basic thinking and cognitive tool for the executors to form the conclusions. The process of administrative law's application is also the process of its interpretation. Each administrative norms has a certain degree of abstraction, if you want to use it in concrete administrative things, you have to interpret it. Administrative interpretation is the bridge to connect administrative norms with its application (ZHOU You-yong, 2009). U.S. scholars Parsons said: 'Interpretation function is the core function of the legal system. '(Legal Theory and Common Law, ed. W. Twining, 1986) Administrative enforcement interpretation has three functions: standardize administrative enforcement, promote the development of the law, and make up the bugs of law. It should be noted that each of these three functions are not separated and independent, but rather complement and supplement each other, these three functions are combined as an entity. In the specific practice, they focus on different aspects, but there is no essential difference. 1. STANDARDIZE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT 1.1 To confirm the exact meaning of the provisions and regulations If the meaning of the words and expressions used in the provisions and regulations are unknown or they may lead to different explanations, it is necessary to use interpretation method to quest and confirm their true meanings to be followed. The does not focus on the character itself, it should be interpreted in its intrinsic meaning which may result in unreasonable conclusions. At the same time, the is not barren theory, we should not persist in useless theory so that affect the effect of the application (ZHANG Jia-yang & CHEN Zhi-hua, 1993). The thirteenth article of says: The railway transportation enterprises should take effective measures to ensure good transportation service, boiled drinking water. It says clearly in the law boiled drinking water, but it doesn't say it is free. If the meaning of the is to provide boiled drinking for free, they should add the word free to it. According to the context interpretation, the key word of the expression providing boiled drinking water is providing. …
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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