Mind the Justificatory Gap: Fairness in Administrative Law through the Rule of Law as a Normative Exercise in Reviewing Regulated Conduct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulatory regimes alter the legal obligations on parties that engage in regulated conduct. Three claims are made: (1) In the sphere of regulated activities, the default assumption the law makes about one's ability to take any action is altered from a presumption that one is at liberty to perform an action to a presumption that one requires permission insofar as that action is within the regulated sphere of activity; (2) This changed presumption about the lawfulness of conduct calls for a higher degree of justification; and (3) Oversight of administrative action, whether through appeals, legislative revision to regulation, or judicial review, requires an understanding of the Rule of Law as a normative exercise. These claims are examined through three case studies: (i) Administrative Monetary Penalty Regimes and their enforcement; (ii) Unauthorized Practice Applications/Prosecutions by regulatory bodies; and (iii) exercises of the public interest jurisdiction by the Ontario Securities Commission.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.052 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".