Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses an apparent asymmetry in the law of judicial review of administrative action. While procedural review is explicitly concerned with the rights of people who find themselves subject to public administrative power, rights do not figure in the prevailing account of substantive review. Instead, courts have treated substantive review as an opportunity to promote the rule of law and give effect to legislative intent. The author argues that the asymmetry is merely apparent, and that especially following Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, substantive review is best understood as a rights-oriented enterprise. More specifically, substantive review vindicates a right to justification according to law held by the legal subject of an administrative decision. This account makes the legal subject visible within the law of substantive review and allows us to see the law of judicial review more generally as an integrated domain concerned with administrative law rights. Note on expert review: This article went through double-blind expert review, in compliance with the Alberta Law Review's typical peer review process. The other articles in this issue were subject to single-blind expert review.
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 | 0.107 | 0.159 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".