THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND TRIBUNALS - DEFERENCE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS: A RECENT PHENOMENON OR A RETURN TO BASICS?
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
Over the last twenty years, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Canada has in general afforded the administrative process considerable room for manoeuvre. Deference to the judgment and choices of administrative tribunals and other statutory authorities has been the accepted norm. Many have assumed this represented a novel development. In this paper, the author argues that there is reason to question this assumption. An examination of the Court's decisions from the very first year of its existence to the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1949 reveals a number of significant examples of judicial restraint in the scrutiny of administrative decision-making both by way of judicial review and statutory appeal. These examples at the very least suggest the need for more sustained research into the early history of judicial review of administrative action in Canada.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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