Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes the main shortcomings of the statutory framework regulating Cabinet secrecy in Canada and proposes solutions to address them. The first shortcoming is the indeterminacy of the term “Cabinet confidence” pursuant to sections 39 of the Canada Evidence Act and 69 of the Access to Information Act. Consequently, the executive has broad discretion to delineate the scope of Cabinet immunity. The second shortcoming stems from the absence of meaningful oversight and review mechanisms to prevent and correct possible abuses of this immunity by the executive. Based on the rule of law principle and an analysis of best practices in similar jurisdictions, the author makes recommendations to more clearly circumscribe the scope of Cabinet immunity and to ensure that claims of immunity are subject to meaningful review by an independent and impartial body. To that end, he proposes a narrower immunity, based on a criterion of injury, that could be justified only following an in-depth examination of the public interest. In addition, the author underscores the importance of excluding from the scope of the immunity any factual and contextual information underpinning government decisions that have been made public. Finally, he recommends that judges and the Information Commissioner of Canada be granted the power to examine Cabinet confidences when there is a dispute concerning the validity of a claim of immunity, and that judges be granted the additional power to compel production of those confidences when it is in the public interest.
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 | 0.038 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".