JUDGING ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES: OVERSIGHT, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND CITIZEN COMPLAINTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Conseil de la justice administrative [CJA] is a distinct oversight body responsible for investigating complaints of deontological breaches committed by members of administrative tribunals in Quebec that wield quasi-judicial powers. In our examination of the CJA’s decisions, we consider it to be a crucial accountability mechanism within the Quebec administrative justice system. Our analysis focuses on identifying the complainants, the nature of their complaints, the tribunals they target, the outcomes of these complaints, and the CJA’s approach to handling them. We found that over 73 percent of the investigated complaints are filed by citizens who allege disrespectful conduct and delays in tribunal decision-making. A significant portion of investigated complaints – nearly 60 percent – are directed at judges from the Tribunal administratif du logement [TAL], the agency responsible for the largest caseload in the province. Of the complaints investigated, around 28 percent were found to involve misconduct, with the CJA recommending sanctions in over 70 percent of substantiated cases. Our analysis reveals that the CJA adopts inquisitorial and restorative approaches in handling complaints rather than an adversarial one. This strategy is focused on remedying harm, ensuring accountability, and restoring public confidence rather than solely imposing punitive measures. Our study contributes to the expanding literature on citizen complaints against public officials by providing an exploratory analysis of the oversight of Quebec’s administrative judges and the handling of complaints against them.
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 | 0.032 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".