From the hash-bound evidence releases
Recorded claims
Each claim states what the inspected source says, at the recorded location—bounded by its scope and graded by its confidence. Nothing here is a synthesis across works.
The abstract argues that AI-based public administration can separate detection of rule–implementation divergence from institutional correction, and proposes separation, records, adjudicative remedy, and propagation as requirements for contestability.
Scope: institutional design and contestability in AI-based public administration
Structured relationships
In-corpus citations
Only source-supplied cites relationships whose two endpoints are admitted are shown. Invocation evidence remains a separate relationship.
Cites (0)
No in-corpus outgoing citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Cited by (0)
No in-corpus incoming citation is available in the current enrichment coverage.
Boundaries
Limitations & independence
Recorded at coding time, carried with the work forever. A claim without its limits is not evidence.
Recorded limitations
- Abstract-level evidence only; full text and the comparative assessment of EU, Canadian, U.S., and Australian instruments were not inspected.
- The contribution is conceptual and legal-institutional rather than an empirical organizational study.
Source independence
ssrn-only