MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108702718

Rebuilt on Sand: Canadian Administrative Law after Vavilov

2020· article· en· W3108702718 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Léonid Sirota

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdministrative lawSupreme courtLawPolitical scienceStandard of reviewAutonomyCitizenshipJudicial reviewState (computer science)CompromiseImmigration lawImmigration
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This comment reviews and critiques the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Vavilov v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). This case refashioned the standard of review analysis by which Canadian courts choose whether to defer to administrative decision-makers, and provided guidance to courts engaged in ostensibly deferential reasonableness review. The comment argues that Vavilov is an uneasy, theoretically unstable compromise between starkly different approaches to administrative law, one of which prioritises the autonomy of the administrative state, and the other, the rule of law. As a result, the Supreme Court's guidance is replete with internal inconsistencies, and cannot provide an enduring foundation for Canadian administrative law.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicOmbudsman and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207