MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150390098

OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF CANADA’S NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCIES: A FRAMEWORK FOR DISCUSSION

2014· article· en· W3150390098 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carmen K Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Bar Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary and Defense Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccountabilityTransparency (behavior)MandateNational securityPolitical sciencePublic relationsPublic administrationCritical security studiesSecurity studiesSociologyBusinessCloud computing securityLawNetwork security policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the author comments on the mandate and role of agencies in the Canadian security system, using as examples the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment. The author also comments on the findings of Mr Justice Dennis O’Connor in the Arar Inquiry, notably his recommendations for increased accountability and the creation of independent mechanisms for review of security decision-making. The author notes that prominent features of the current security system include lack of transparency, increased international co-operation and information sharing, and the potential for racial, ethnic and religious profiling.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Bar ReviewSame topicMilitary and Defense StudiesFrench-language works237,207