Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION In April of 2000, the Canadian House of Commons passed Bill C-6, the Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA or the Act).1 The passage of PIPEDA marked a huge milestone in the development of Canadian privacy law because previous laws only regulated the public sector.2 This federal statute, pursuant to ten provisions contained in the Canadian Standards Association Model Code for the of Personal Information,3 seeks to protect privacy by requiring individual's consent before her personal data is used, collected, transferred, or released.4 Criminal or civil penalties may be imposed on organizations that violate PIPEDA provisions.5 PIPEDA was enacted partially in reaction to a similar European Union (E.U.) policy directive.6 Another impetus for the enactment of PIPEDA was the Canadian population's concern about the security of its personal given the prevalence of internet transactions and e-commerce.7 Numerous questions exist concerning PIPEDA's applicability to foreign entities. This presents a novel question because, until recently, only Canadian federally-regulated businesses and organizations disclosing personal extra-provincially had to comply with PIPEDA.8 All other organizations had until January of 2004 to comply.9 For businesses to undertake appropriate compliance measures, they must know whether or not they are subject to PIPEDA's provisions. Additionally, because PIPEDA does not contain a grand-fathering provision, organizations cannot avoid compliance with PIPEDA by simply not transferring personal currently in its possession; PIPEDA bars them from using already in their possession without obtaining individual consent.10 PIPEDA's reach thus extends retroactively, making the compliance question a weightier one. Further complicating the situation, PIPEDA's plain language does not clearly delineate which entities must comply with its provisions. The Act states that it applies to organizations that fit certain criteria. The criteria, however, do not limit the application of PIPEDA to Canadian entities or specify what degree of physical presence in Canada subjects a foreign entity to PIPEDA.11 PIPEDA's potential to regulate e-commerce and Cyberspace transactions adds to the applicability problem because it remains unclear where such transactions occur. Finally, the scope of PIPEDA's applicability presents important question because many organizations and individuals are preparing to use [it] for personal gains or disruptive purposes.12 This Note evaluates which organizations must comply with PIPEDA by examining three areas: the purpose behind the legislation, Canadian law on extra-territorial jurisdiction, and principles of international law governing extra-territorial jurisdiction. Part II focuses on PIPEDA's structure and provisions, its jurisdictional vagueness, and methods of statutory interpretation. Part III predicts the manner in which PIPEDA will apply to foreign entities. II. DISCUSSION A. PIPEDA 's Structure and Provisions PIPEDA is divided into two main parts. Part I, entitled Protection of Personal Information in the Private sector, regulates the use and transfer of personal information.13 Part II deals solely with electronic documents.14 This Note will focus only on Part I. B. Key Provisions of Part I 1. Definitions PIPEDA applies to every organization in respect of personal that . . . collects, uses or discloses [personal information] in the course of commercial activity.15 The Act contains interpretation section that defines key terms.16 The term, Organization encompasses an association, a partnership, a person and a trade union.17 Personal is defined as information about identifiable individual but does not include name, title, business address or telephone number of employee of organization. …
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 | 0.026 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.001 |
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".