Reinventing Regulation/Reinventing Accountability: Judicial Review in New Governance Regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Essay considers the doctrinal and institutional challenges courts and designers of New Governance systems face when considering the availability and scope of judicial review. Part II briefly summarizes New Governance principles, while Part III explains the challenges they pose for American standing law. The Essay then considers solutions. Part IV considers aspects of other nations’ administrative standing law, considering whether those nations’ legal innovations overcome these hurdles while remaining true to courts’ proper role in reviewing agency action. Other nations have taken significant steps to resolve these issues; however, it remains unclear whether those resolutions transfer to the different institutional and legal structure in the United States. Part V considers whether the problem of standing can be resolved in a principled way by reconceptualizing the injury plaintiffs allege when they challenge New Governance regulation. Finally, Part VI considers the proper scope of judicial review of New Governance regulation.
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 | 0.090 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".