Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last eight years the Chr?tien government has taken several steps that have weakened the Access to Information Act, the federal law that guarantees the rights of citizens to access information held by the government. These changes compel a reconsideration of the Act's enforcement strategy - a strategy that is common to many older right-to-information laws - which is centered principally on the resolution of complaints about individual cases of non-compliance and gives the final authority to resolve complaints to the Federal Court of Canada rather than the Information Commissioner. The author argues that a better strategy would put greater emphasis on the analysis and publication of data on overall compliance patterns; give the Commissioner more effective tools for remedying systemic non-compliance; and give the Commissioner the authority to issue orders to resolve complaints about specific cases of non-compliance. These steps would help to repair frayed relationships between the Office of the Information Commissioner and federal departments, and would improve overall compliance with the requirements of the Act.
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 | 0.070 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".