L'adaptation de l'intensité du contrôle juridictionnel aux caractéristiques de l'action administrative contrôlée
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objet de cette etude est l’adaptation de l’intensite du controle juridictionnel aux caracteristiques de l’action administrative controlee. L’examen est fait a la lumiere de quatre systemes juridiques : Canada, Etats-Unis, France et Italie. L’origine de l’interet scientifique reside dans le constat d’une progressive complexite materielle et institutionnelle de l’administration publique et dans le doute a propos de l’adaptation du droit administratif a cette circonstance. Ce travail a enquete sur la question de l’adaptation du droit administratif en ce qui concerne un point tres specifique : l’intensite du controle juridictionnel de l’administration publique. Voila la question-cle : comment adapter l’intensite du controle juridictionnelle a la complexite de l’administration publique contemporaine ? A cet egard, il est souvent soutenu dans des differents forums que l’adaptation du droit a la complexite administrative exigerait de faire consacrer une solution specifique : un controle juridictionnel limite, peu intense (deferent). Cette solution serait pretendument plus adequate aux circonstances factuelles presentes que n’importe quelle alternative. Contrairement a cette idee, la these soutenue ici est la suivante : il existe une pluralite de formes et de degres par lesquels l’intensite du controle juridictionnel peut etre adaptee a la complexite de l’administration publique contemporaine, aucune solution n’etant abstraitement superieure aux autres.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".