Access to Courts by Public Interest Groups Seeking to Challenge Government Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an era marked by increasing government regulation, one method of challenging government decisions is for citizens and public interest groups within society to seek access to the courts. Although there are other avenues, such as through the political process or media pressure, the legal process is attractive because courts can grant effective remedies and their decisions carry weight due to the authority and independence of the judiciary. Judicial review by the courts provides an effective mechanism for review of government decisions. However, the fi rst step – gaining access to the courts – can be a barrier. Citizens have increasingly sought access to the courts to redress broad social and political issues. Courts have responded by gradually granting access to some public interest groups, carefully ensuring a credible, predictable basis for this access. This chapter will map how the courts have widened access to public interest groups. It will adopt a comparativist approach by considering cases in a variety of different interest areas in Canada and Australia. The chapter argues that meaningful redress of wrongs through public interest litigation in domestic courts can – and should – remain a useful strategy for securing global justice.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.005 |
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".