MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899696301

Canadian Administrative Law and Good Governance

2017· article· en· W2899696301 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Léonid Sirota

Bibliographic record

VenueCentAUR (University of Reading) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrinciple of legalityAdministrative lawConstitutionalityCorporate governanceGood governanceLawQuality (philosophy)Political scienceRelation (database)Public administrationLaw and economicsBusinessEconomicsConstitutionComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Good governance is one of the important values that administrative law serves. It is a complex concept. The author describes the nature of good governance and how administrative law supports it, as well as the limits of its ability to do so, in relation to the quality and efficiency of the decision-making process, the substantive quality of administrative decisions, and, finally, the legality and constitutionality of administrative decisions. Based on a review of Canadian administrative law over the past two decades, the author warns that there is a danger in a simplistic commitment to one aspect of good governance — the substantive quality of administrative decisions — at the expense of the others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCentAUR (University of Reading)Same topicOmbudsman and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207