MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911642686 · doi:10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501148

Exploring the relationships between freedom of information and institutional information management in the Chinese government: An empirical study

2018· article· en· W2911642686 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Siyi Li

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicE-Government and Public Services
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesRenmin University of ChinaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsFreedom of informationChinaGovernment (linguistics)State (computer science)Presentation (obstetrics)Work (physics)BusinessPeople's RepublicPublic relationsEmpirical researchThe RepublicPolitical sciencePublic administrationLawComputer scienceEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Regulation on Opening Government Information of the People's Republic of China ‐ the Chinese version of Freedom of Information (FOI) law in other contexts ‐ was issued by the State Council in 2007 and took effect the following year. Similar to other FOI laws, the regulation stipulates two approaches for disclosing information and they are proactive disclosure and disclosure‐by‐request (DbR). This research aimed at exploring the relationships between DbR and institutional information management in China. Twenty‐five institutions of the State Council were decided to be data sources, from which data were collected by browsing websites and sending information requests. This presentation reports on the findings of the study and the future work that should follow up on the study.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Association for Information Science and TechnologySame topicE-Government and Public ServicesFrench-language works237,207