DEFERENCE, DEFIANCE, AND DOCTRINE: DEFINING THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While a court must respect the sphere of decision-making autonomy properly enjoyed by a public authority, a general doctrine of deference is unlikely to furnish a useful means of defining the limits of the court's jurisdiction. The appropriate degree of judicial deference is dependent on all the circumstances: the correct balance between constitutional rights and the general public interest is a feature of the context in which a specific legal issue arises. A doctrine of deference is rendered otiose by application of the ordinary common law grounds of judicial review, whereby the decision of a public authority is subjected to a test of procedural rectitude. The legitimacy of an executive decision is a function of the quality of the process that led to it, in which rights are accorded an importance commensurate with their true weight in all the circumstances. Wednesbury unreasonableness, correctly understood, constitutes a control over process adaptable to context and circumstance. The rule of law imposes constraints of equality and due process, and in the legislative context the former principle is paramount. Statutes must be interpreted as conforming to constitutional principle, so that basic rights are not unjustifiably curtailed. Legislation should not be held invalid, or defective, when capable of a suitably benign construction, consistent with constitutional standards. What is required is a construction that reconciles legitimate public purposes and established basic rights, according to context; and courts are only rarely justified in abdicating that responsibility.
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 | 0.041 | 0.095 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".