Electronic discovery — Sedona Canada is inadequate on records management — here’s Sedona Canada in amended form
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A paper record can exist without its records system; an electronic record cannot. To use, corrupt, or destroy a paper record, one needs physical access to the records system wherein it is stored. But to use, corrupt, or destroy an electronic record one merely needs electronic access to its records system, from anywhere. Therefore any set of rules or principles for controlling the use of electronic records for any purpose, including electronic discovery, should incorporate the established policies and practices of electronic records management.\nAs to cost, rules of electronic discovery are needed with which to punish par- ties with “sanctions” for not maintaining their electronic records systems in compliance with authoritative standards of electronic records management — to sanction when inadequate records management interferes with electronic discovery or otherwise damages parties’ interests. Such compliance greatly reduces the cost of, and increases the effectiveness and fairness of doing anything that can be done with electronic records. Therefore, by thus incorporating records management into the law of electronic discovery, discovery is made more effective and is better equipped to control its costs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".