How has the implementation of the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000 affected archives and records management services?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider what the impact of the first six months of the Freedom of Information Act has been on archives and records management services in UK public services. The UK Freedom of Information Act was passed in 2000 and came into full operation on 1 January 2005. It gives people, regardless of nationality, a right to be told whether public bodies hold information and to be provided with that information. Similar legislation exists in over 50 countries including the USA, Canada, Australia and Ireland. Design/methodology/approach The project undertook interviews with four case study organisations: University College London, the Metropolitan Police, Peterborough City Council and Soham Village College. Using the Department for Constitutional Affairs Model Action Plan, the researchers examined leadership and policy, training and awareness, information and records management, customers and stakeholders and systems and procedures. Findings The research showed that the four case study organisations coped well with the requests they received in the first six months of 2005. However, the systems would not have been robust enough had request levels been higher. Originality/value Archives and records management services are a key part of FOI and should take an active role in research to establish best practice.
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 | 0.030 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".