Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996) stipulates that every person has the right of access to information held by government. To give effect to this right, legislation in the form of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act 2 of 2000) was promulgated. This study explores the access to information regime that was established by die aforementioned legislation with specific reference to similar regimes in the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Attention is also devoted to the prerequisites and potential obstacles associated with the implementation of the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000. \n \nBased on the practices in other states, the conclusion was reached that the nature of information that may be requested in the South African context should be expanded, that cabinet records should only be excluded to the extent that disclosure thereof would be harmful, that frequently requested records should be made automatically available and that decision-making guidelines of government institutions should be published. As far as procedural requirements are concerned, it is proposed that information officers should acknowledge receipt of requests and that, where necessary, records should be translated to ensure that they are useful to a requester. It is further proposed that the wording of the ground of refusal regarding policy formulation and decision-making in government institutions be amended to take account of the consequences of disclosure. It is imperative that appeal and review mechanisms be accessible to members of the public and it is therefore proposed that an information commissioner be instituted to settle disputes in information related matters. Lastly it is proposed that sanctions be imposed against officials who deliberately undermine the public's right of access to information and that separate units be established in government institutions to deal exclusively with requests for access to 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".