Accessing with Dinosaurs: Protecting Access to Government Information in the Cretaceous Period of Canadian Democracy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper will explore the fate of a democratic dinosaur, the Canadian Access to Information Act. The Access Act is the primary tool that protects our right to access federal government information. This right is widely recognized as important to ensure government accountability and to promote political participation by citizens. Notwithstanding the importance of protecting this right, the Access Act has not been updated in any meaningful way since it was first enacted in 1982, despite widespread recognition of the need for modernization. While the legislative framework has remained static, new and greater threats to our right to access government information have developed. These threats include bureaucratic delays and refusals, political interference with access requests, failure to keep adequate records, and new legislative provisions designed to reduce access or even eliminate access investigations retroactively. As a result, the Access Act stands as the Triceratops in the Cretaceous period, clad with some protections against predators who would restrict our rights to access government information, but ultimately ill-prepared to face the threats of increasingly effective predators and certainly unprepared to deal with the changing environment or to adjust to cataclysmic events. In light of this, I will consider three ways that the right to access government information should evolve to more effectively face its predators, to better adapt to the changing environment, and to ensure its protection when faced with cataclysmic events. These evolutionary imperatives include legislative renewal, executive action, and judicial protection of access to government information.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".