Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter surveys the comparative administrative law literature on the judicial scrutiny and control of administrative reasoning processes. The chapter takes as its starting point the English, Australian, and New Zealand approach to this topic—commonly known in these jurisdictions as judicial review on the grounds of improper purpose, irrelevant considerations, and mandatory considerations. Some minor divergences between these jurisdictions are noted, as is the fact that the French approach shares at least some similar features. The chapter then identifies a range of other jurisdictions whose law on this topic has one or more features that differ from the English approach in interesting and potentially illuminating ways. The other jurisdictions touched on are Canada, the US, South Africa, Germany, and China. The different approaches identified are: no review of reasoning processes, scrutiny of reasoning processes on a much broader basis, different approaches to the intensity of review, and a shift away from review of reasoning processes to assessment of outcomes. The final sections of the chapter briefly consider possible correlations with system types, and offer some concluding reflections.
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 | 0.085 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".