A Critical Analysis of the Disjuncture between the Constitutional and Legislative Limits on the Right to Access to Information in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article critically analyses the disjuncture between the constitutional and legislative limits to the right to access to information in Uganda in order to determine its legal implication on the effectiveness of the exercise of the right to access to information in the country. It also demonstrates the role of Ugandan courts in interpreting the limitation of the right. In so doing, the article critically reviews Ugandan jurisprudence decided after the enactment of the access to information legislation in 2005, to evince how and the extent to which Ugandan courts have been able to grapple with the interpretation and the enforcement of the limitation of the right. Given these limitative differences, the article concludes that it is in the best interest of the Ugandan legislature to harmonise these differential limitations in order to permit ordinary citizen to effectively exercise their right, without which the exercise of the right will be a myth. It could also enable the courts to effectively interpret and enforce the limitation of the right when the context prevails.
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 | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".