Is die hersieningsgrond "rasionaliteit" in artikel 6(2)(f)(ii) van wet 3 van 2000 van toepassing op huishoudelike dissiplinêre tribunale?National Horseracing Authority of Southern Africa v Naidoo 2010 3 SA 182 (KZP) : regspraak
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Die Wet op die Bevordering van 3 van 2000 is van toepassing op wat val onder die definisie van administratiewe optrede soos uiteengesit in artikel 1 van die wet. Hierdie artikel omskryf onder andere in artikel 1(b) as 'n besluit geneem deur 'n natuurlike of juridiese persoon, anders as 'n orgaan van die staat, wanneer dit publieke mag of 'n publieke funksie in terme van 'n magtigende bepaling uitoefen wat die regte van enige persoon nadelig raak en wat 'n direkte, eksterne regseffek het. Hierdie subartikel, soos trouens die hele artikel 1, skep probleme as dit kom by die interpretasie daarvan soos blyk uit heelwat beslissings van die howe (Grey's Marine Hout Bay (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works 2005 6 SA 313 (HHA) par 21; Sebenza Forwarding and Shipping Consultancy (Pty) Ltd v Petroleum Oil and Gas Corporation of South Africa (Pty) Ltd 2006 2 SA 52 (K) par 20) asook uitsprake van skrywers (Hoexter Administrative Law in South Africa (2007) 186; Barrie The question as to what constitutes 'administrative action' remains 2002 TSAR 562; Mare 'n Kritiese Analise van die Begrip Administratiewe Geregtigheid in die Grondwet, met besondere Verwysing na die Konkretisering daarvan in die Wet op die Bevordering van (2008 proefskrif Universiteit van die Vrystaat) 300).
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.012 |
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".