For the Purpose of Accountability: The Need for a Comprehensive Recordkeeping Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of digital technologies has been sudden, pervasive, and global in scope.A consequence of this paradigm shift is the threat these technologies pose to the effective accountability of our public institutions.Given the fundamental importance of accountability to democracy, and the central role records play in documenting accountability, records management cannot be discretionary.It must be a matter of law.The requirements of an effective records management system mirror those of the financial management systems used by governments across Canada.Modern financial management systems are comprehensive regimes, which have developed over decades.They incorporate legislation, policy, procedures, standards, and the means to verify compliance.To create a similar regime for the management of records as sources of evidence, governments need to establish strong, enforceable legislation and policies, and the creators, managers, and users of information need to apply standards-based approaches to all aspects of the care of information and evidence.1 I owe a great debt to Dr. Laura Millar whose editing skills were invaluable throughout the writing of this paper.I also would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers who made several useful suggestions that improved the quality of the paper.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".