MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W262880753

Submission to Standing Committee on Health Bill 52, Health Information Amendment Act, 2009 April 24, 2009

2009· article· en· W262880753 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Tracey M. Bailey, Karin L. Kellogg, Gergely Hegedus

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth law review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationConfidentialityLawPrivacy lawFreedom of informationPolitical scienceBill of rightsFTC Fair Information PracticeInformation privacyPrivacy policyHuman rights
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Health Law Institute, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta The Health Law Institute is an academic institute of the University of Alberta established in part to promote positive reform of law and associated policy. Based upon previous work in the area of law and the handling of information, we are pleased to have the opportunity to comment on Bill 52. We look forward to providing further comments and explanation in person if requested to do so by the Standing Committee on Health. In this submission, we outline aspects of Bill 52 which provide improvements over the current legislation, and comment upon amendments that, in our respectful opinion, tip the balance too far in favour of non-explicit uses of without sufficient detail regarding the related mechanisms and duties. There is little weight left on the side of protection of the rights and privacy of individuals respecting access to their information. We conclude with recommendations regarding next steps. Purposes of the Health Information Act Alberta's Health Information Act (HIA) was enacted in 2001 with certain explicit purposes in mind (as set out in s. 2 of the legislation). All of those purposes are relevant to the amendments that have been introduced in the form of Bill 52. Those purposes are as follows: a) to establish strong and effective mechanisms to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to their and to protect the confidentiality of that information, b) to enable to be shared and accessed, where appropriate, to provide services and to manage the system, c) to prescribe rules for the collection, use and disclosure of information, which are to be carried out in the most limited manner and with the highest degree of anonymity that is possible in the circumstances, d) to provide individuals with a right of access to about themselves, subject to limited and specific exceptions as set out in this Act, e) to provide individuals with a right to request correction or amendment of about themselves, f) to establish strong and effective remedies for contraventions of this Act, and g) to provide for independent reviews of decisions made by custodians under this Act and the resolution of complaints under this Act. 1999 cH-4.8 s2 It is clear from a review of such purposes that the task for the legislature is the striking of an appropriate balance between competing purposes such as protection of individual privacy and the use of to provide better care to Albertans, for example. We respectfully submit that Bill 52, The Health Information Amendment Act, 2009 will significantly undermine the achievement of an appropriate balance between these important aims if enacted in its current form. The amendments tip the scale in favour of the use, as government sees fit, for any number of purposes (not only to improve the care system or to provide care services) without adequate consultation, oversight by the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta, consideration of the wishes of individuals, or appropriate accountability to individuals for the collection, use and/or disclosure of their information. Expanded Scope of HIA We support the amendments in Bill 52 aimed at expanding the scope of health service and, as a result, that will be treated as health information under the HIA. We make this submission based on the predication that other concerns as set out in our submission are addressed. It has been unwieldy for care providers that deliver care services to be subject to more than one piece of provincial legislation depending upon method of payment for those care services. Expansion of services regardless of source of payment will enable care providers to deal with of individuals in a consistent manner. …

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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.463
GPT teacher head0.602
Teacher spread0.139 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth law reviewSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207