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 OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Aviv Gaon, Ian Stedman

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.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0230.017
Scholarly communication0.0240.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0130.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicLegal and Policy IssuesFrench-language works237,207