MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411656908 · doi:10.51847/gfj4hqxfly

10.51847/Gfj4HQxflY

2000· article· en· W4411656908 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTime to knit · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJudicial and Constitutional Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic JusticePolitical scienceAdministrative courtPublic administrationLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the Act 173 of the constitution, Administrative Court of Justice is formed under the inspection of the judiciary branch and it is the qualified authority for examining and invalidating the enacted bills and rules that are against the canonical regulations, law and/or outside the domain of the government's jurisdiction corresponding to the acts 170 and 173 of the constitution and articles 1, 12 and 13, note 2 to article 84 as well as articles 86 and 87 of the new law in administrative tribunal, approved in 22/12/2011.The present study deals with analyzing the most important kinds of supervision exerted on the governmental regulations and the authorities that are qualified to recognize their being against the canonical rules and finally it explores the invalidations' effective period in Iran.Despite the fact that act 138 of the constitution authorizes board of ministers to codify bills, rules and regulations and so on, as part of their administrative assignments, safeguard law enforcement and organize administrative institutions, in the same act as well as in acts 4-170 and 173 of the constitution there are limitations set stipulating that the governmental regulations should not mean any sort of contradiction to the Islamic rules and the law, as a whole, and also that they have to be inside their specified jurisdictions.The statutory mandate for the non-observation of such limitations is their invalidation by the administrative tribunal.Parallel to canonical inspection, the respectable Guardians Council is the sole qualified authority to recognize the governmental rules and regulations' contradiction to the Islamic rules and the verdicts opined by the jurisprudent members of the Guardians Council should be indispensably followed by the Administrative Court of Justice.However, based on the necessity for the judicial system's exertion of supervision and according to the Guardians Council's ideas regarding the governmental regulations' contradiction of the canonical rules as well as verifying the other reasons contributing to the invalidation of certain rules and regulations, administrative tribunal is the only official authority qualified to disprove governmental regulations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9760.975

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTime to knit→Same topicJudicial and Constitutional Studies→French-language works237,207→