Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter introduces the means of achieving the three objectives of this book: to enhance the understanding, guide the future development and justify the core features of contemporary administrative law. First, the historical backdrop to the development, in recent decades, of general principles of administrative law is explained. Second, the four values which provide structure to the law of judicial review of administrative action are introduced: individual self-realisation, good administration, electoral legitimacy and decisional autonomy. Third, an explanation on how these values are used to interpret the core features of contemporary administrative law is given. Fourth, the chapter addresses the book’s comparative approach, justifying the choice of Australia, Canada, England, Ireland and New Zealand as its focus. Fifth, this chapter situates the book’s interpretivist approach, which relies on a plurality of values, in the existing scholarly literature on administrative law, noting that unlike others this book does not argue that there is one single meta-value, meta-principle or meta-concept around which the subject revolves. Lastly, this chapter provides an overview of the rest of this book.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.001 |
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 it