Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article challenges the idea that judicial review is purely judicial and adversarial in nature. Instead, I argue that recent doctrinal and remedial changes to judicial review suggest that courts hold a quasi-administrative jurisdiction. By a quasi-administrative jurisdiction, I mean one that prospectively, and retrospectively, aids and advises on the execution of public administration. For example, the Federal Court in Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v Mason suggested that federal tribunals should start using the advisory reference procedure found in section 18.3(1) of the 1985 Federal Courts Act to resolve ‘dueling administrative interpretations’ of their home statutes. Canadian courts have also started to remit cases back to administrative decision makers with specific instructions explaining how they are to proceed upon redetermination, thereby structuring and advising on the proper exercise of discretion. The existence of these quasi-administrative remedies requires us to rethink Lon Fuller’s contention that the form of adjudication is inherently bilateral, adversarial, and retrospective. Fuller’s contention was based on the claim that arguments in court are ordinarily presented in the form of claims of right in the disputant’s favour. However, I argue that, in public law adjudication, arguments are presented in the form of claims of legitimate authority in the public interest. This establishes judicial review on what I term a multilateral, collaborative, and prospective form of adjudication. This form suggests that the court is in fact suited to exercising quasi-administrative functions.
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 | 0.054 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".