Improving juidicial review of administrative discretion in China: lessons from Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the promulgation of the Administrative Litigation Law, China has established its system of judicial review of administrative action. However, over 15 years' judicial practice have exposed the court's ineffectiveness in reviewing discretionary powers. China needs to reform the current system to meet the domestic and international demands to control expanding administrative discretion and to protect individual rights. Given Chinese judges' lack of experience in this area and Canada's well developed practice of judicial review, Canadian law may be a good model for China to consider in developing reforms. However, it is unlikely for China to directly apply the contextual approach that Canadian judges adopted for judicial review as China lacks an independent judiciary and competent judges. Nonetheless, China can learn some lessons from the Canadian experience. The ALL needs to be amended; Chinese courts should be given more power; and a case law system is suggested in particular.
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 | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".