Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his 2004 Horace E Read Memorial Lecture, David Mullan assesses the impact of the "due process explosion." To what extent has the evolution of Canadian law (both statutory and common) in the domain of procedural fairness been responsible for the phenomenon of excessive judicialization of the administrative process? Has the increase in the number of decision-makers subject to the obligation of procedural fairness and the growth in the parallels between tribunal and court processes affected adversely the interests of the administrative justice system and the public that it is meant to serve? The author suggests that there is a basis for this concern. He also argues that one potentially profitable way of dealing with it is for tribunals to recognize that they do not always have to function in the same way procedurally for all matters coming before them for resolution. While some tribunals have accepted this and make provision in their rules for variegated procedures depending on context, the author contends that the time may now have come to legislate for this possibility in the manner of the 1981 Model State Administrative Procedure Act.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".