Aportes del derecho comparado a los sistemas alternativos de resolución de amparos del derecho de acceso a la información en Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolUno de los desafios del Consejo para la Transparencia (CPLT) consiste en resolver dentro de plazos breves los amparos del derecho de acceso a informacion que sean presentados por los ciudadanos. En esta investigacion se explica como otros organismos con atribuciones similares al CPLT utilizan Sistemas Alternativos de Resolucion de Confl ictos (SARC) para cerrar en forma temprana los casos menos complejos o respecto de los cuales hay precedentes claros. Asi, se revisan en detalle las experiencias australiana, canadiense, escocesa, estadounidense, inglesa e irlandesa en la materia. Se propone institucionalizar y consolidar en el CPLT la busqueda de acuerdos entre las partes a traves de SARC, pues ello no solo contribuye a descongestionar la carga de trabajo sino que ademas aumenta la efi cacia del derecho de acceso a informacion. EnglishOne of the challenges of the Council for Transparency (CT) consists in solving over a short period of time the citizens� complaints on freedom of information. This research explains how similar institutions use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (ADR) to conclude the less complex cases over a shorter period of time. In this context, it analyses the American, Australian, British, Canadian, and Irish experiences in the subject. It proposes that institutionalizing and consolidating, within the Council for Transparency, the exploration of agreements between parties by ADR, not only contributes to decongest the workload but also strengthens the efficacy of the right of freedom of information.
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 | 0.021 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".