MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524584862

The impact of the Freedom of Information Act on central government in the UK: does freedom of information work?

2010· book· en· W1524584862 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBIROn (Birkbeck, University of London) · 2010
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFreedom of informationCabinet (room)Government (linguistics)Work (physics)Political scienceFreedom of the pressPublic administrationPublic relationsLawEngineeringPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book synopsis: The UK Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 was passed with the intention of making government more transparent, accountable and effective. It has led to a number of high-profile stories, from MPs' expenses to Heathrow expansion and the Cabinet minutes on Iraq. 
\n
\nThe authors ask: has FOI worked? This book is the first systematic evaluation of FOI anywhere in the world. It evaluates the performance of the Act against its objectives, and its impact on Whitehall. The book draws upon evidence from interviews with officials, plus FOI requesters and journalists as well as stories in the national press. Each chapter draws on case studies to make particular points and bring the study to life. It also compares developments in the UK to those in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it