Supreme Court Recognizes (a Derivative) Right to Access Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On June 17, 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited decision in Criminal Lawyers’ Assn. v. Ontario (Ministry of Public Safety and Security). The unanimous judgment of the Court, co-written by McLachlin C.J.C. and Abella J., is significant in that it recognizes, for the first time in Canada, that section 2(b) of the Charter protects a right to access government information. It remains to be seen, however, what impact the Criminal Lawyers’ Assn. decision will have from a practical perspective. The limited guidance provided by the Court is that there is a right to access information where it is “necessary to permit meaningful discussion on a matter of public interest”. In this article the author posits that having established a toehold in Canadian law, the scope of the right of access will necessarily expand over time.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| 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".