Something to Talk About: Is There a Charter Right to Access Government Information?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".