MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926271414 · doi:10.29173/alr2547

A Call to Action: Moving Forward with the Governance of Artificial Intelligence in Canada

2019· article· en· W2926271414 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Policy Issues
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersNational Research Foundation SingaporeNational Research FoundationStrongCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsAccountabilityCorporate governanceGovernment (linguistics)Action (physics)Key (lock)Public administrationWorld classBusinessEconomicsManagementPolitical scienceLawEngineeringComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Government of Canada has committed to accelerating the growth of the country’s world-class artificial intelligence (AI) sector. This emerging technology has the potential to impact nearly every segment of Canada’s economy, including national security, health care, and government services. To prepare for the key challenges and opportunities that AI will give rise to, we offer an innovative governance model for Canadian governments to adopt. This model recognizes the uncertainty ahead and prioritizes oversight and accountability while also encouraging a flexible policy-first approach. This approach fosters responsible AI innovation and supports Canada’s emergence as a leader in AI technology and governance.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.292 · 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