Le principe de la primauté du droit et le droit administratif dans l’ordre du jour des rapports d’interface politico-administrative en régime démocratique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article vise à mettre en lumière certains aspects des rapports d’interface politico-administrative qui, directement ou indirectement, mobilisent les fondements du droit administratif. Envisagé dans la perspective plus large du principe de la primauté du droit, le droit administratif comporte non seulement des règles susceptibles d’influer sur la marge de manœuvre des autorités étatiques, mais il exprime aussi des contraintes interprétatives réelles, dont les acteurs de l’interface politico-administrative ne peuvent faire l’économie. Ces contraintes visent à réaffirmer que les projets politiques ne doivent pas se réaliser au prix des principes démocratiques et du constitutionnalisme, qui sous-tendent la création et le maintien d’un État de droit. Le texte présente ensuite brièvement certains mouvements de transformations de la gouvernance étatique et formule quelques observations sur l’impact qu’ils sont susceptibles de produire sur les fondements du droit administratif et sur le principe de la primauté du droit.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".