Guidance Documents for Card Industry Code of Conduct Open for Public Consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada (FCAC) is seeking comments on three proposed guidance documents it has published to assist with the implementation of new disclosure requirements set out in the April 2015 update to the Code of Conduct for the Credit and Debit Card Industry in Canada (the Code). Submissions to FCAC regarding the draft guidance documents are due April 15, 2016.\nThe April 2015 update amended the code to require, among other things, that all merchant-acquirer agreements include a cover page containing an information summary box and fee disclosure box. The proposed guidance documents (CG-10, CG-15 and CG-16) are meant to clarify the April 2015 update and to provide further guidance with respect to compliance.
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 | 0.069 | 0.257 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.126 | 0.137 |
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".