MétaCan
← all works

Selecting a Standard of Review: What Does This Entail Post-Vavilov?

2025· article· en· 0 citations· W4414833970 on OpenAlex· 10.29173/alr2840

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian venueIt was published in a Canadian venue.
About CanadaIts subject is Canada, wherever its authors sit.

No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame — the usual design — would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

The three-model screen

all 1,000 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: venue_new · design weight: 2684.25 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Administrative law analysis of the judicial standard of review post-Vavilov; 'standard of review' is judicial, not peer review.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The article analyzes administrative-law doctrine, not the research system.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: conceptual
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Canadian administrative-law analysis of judicial review standards, not research evaluation or policy of science.

Abstract

Considerable scholarly and judicial attention has been devoted to the selection of the standard of review in Canadian administrative law. Through generational analysis of the developments and challenges in administrative law, and a comparison of the different standards of review, the article examines the place of Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov in the jurisprudential landscape. The article suggests that Vavilov now serves as the new Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), providing practical guidance and a stable framework by simplifying the selection of the standard of review process but requires further refinement by attending to transparency and justification regarding the reweighing of factors and the use of Charter values. Ultimately, this article proposes that Baker and Vavilov together could inform the next generational shift in administrative law: the formal recognition of a general duty to provide reasons.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

The record

Venue
Alberta Law Review
Topic
Ombudsman and Human Rights
Field
Social Sciences
Canadian institutions
Funders
Keywords
CharterTransparency (behavior)DutyCitizenshipSelection (genetic algorithm)Process (computing)
Has abstract in OpenAlex
yes