MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946702792 · doi:10.5931/djim.v15i0.8981

The Right to be Forgotten: The Potential Effects on Canadian

2019· article· en· W2946702792 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie Journal of Interdisciplinary Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRight to be forgottenVaguenessNew RightRight to knowPolitical scienceLawRight to privacyFederal courtThe Right to PrivacyFreedom of informationData Protection Act 1998PoliticsHuman rightsSupreme court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the introduction of the right to be forgotten to European law in 2014, many Western countries have contemplated whether the right could be applied to their citizens. In October 2018, Canada’s Privacy Commissioner asked the Federal Court of Canada to decide if the right is a Canadian fundamental right. However, the right to be forgotten has caused a lot of issues in Europe due to its vagueness and if Canada’s Federal Court rules in favour of making the right a Canadian right, changes will need to be made to it to protect Canadian archives. This paper explores the right to be forgotten and discuss the potential effects the right may have on Canadian archives by exploring the origins of the right, how third-party search engines are currently handling the right, Canadian laws and policies surrounding privacy and the right to know and Canadian archival practices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.265 · 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