Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been extensive literature on proportionality that praises its global spread and delves into its embedment in domestic contexts. Through a series of case studies from around the world, however, this Article shows judicial practices countering, explicitly or implicitly, the popular notion of globalization of proportionality. In Canada and the United Kingdom, the Supreme Courts have directed the courts to depart from proportionality and rely on unreasonableness as a default standard of judicial review of administrative decisions. Courts in Hong Kong and Taiwan have developed various levels of intensity of review associated with proportionality; the lowest of which transforms proportionality, a rights protective doctrine, into a form of weak reasonableness review or deferential rational-basis review. The Chinese courts have fashioned proportionality into a tool to justify illegal government actions and advance authoritarian projects. This Article describes these judicial practices as counter currents of proportionality and argues that they are not merely variations of proportionality used in local contexts; instead, they have either deserted the doctrine entirely or contradicted its core features: (1) structured analytical procedure and (2) high-level human rights protection. In response to these counter currents, this Article proposes that once a court adopts proportionality in its adjudication, it must adhere to the structured analytical framework and insist on a minimum rigor of this doctrine.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".