MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2203232437

Something to Talk About: Is There a Charter Right to Access Government Information?

2009· article· en· W2203232437 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOmbudsman and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterConstitutional rightPolitical scienceJurisprudenceSupreme courtLawGovernment (linguistics)DemocracyRight to knowConstitutional lawFundamental rightsFreedom of informationConstitutional courtAccess to informationHuman rightsLaw and economicsInformation accessSociologyConstitutionPoliticsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Can sections 2(b) and 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be interpreted to protect a constitutional right of access to government information? The author argues that the constitutional principle of democracy provides a foundation for judicial recognition of such a constitutional right of access even though the inclusion of an explicit right to access to government information was rejected during the process of drafting the Charter. Given that the Supreme Court of Canada's section 2(b) and 3 jurisprudence has been informed by the principle of democracy, the application of the principle may now guide the Court to include protection of access to government information in its evolving interpretation of those Charter rights. Finally, a hypothetical case is considered in order to outline ways in which a constitutional right to access may be justifiably limited.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.285 · 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