MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322576625 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4366335

Response to Toronto Police Service's consultation on the draft governance for the acquisition and use of AI technology

2023· article· en· W4322576625 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ana Brandusescu, Maurice Jones, Thomas Linder, Fenwick McKelvey, Brenda McPhail, Alex Megelas, Shalaleh Rismani, Ushnish Sengupta, Renée Sieber

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityConcordia UniversityAlgoma UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceService (business)Public administrationPolitical scienceLawManagementEngineeringBusinessEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.224
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0360.011
Scholarly communication0.0160.005
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.1000.107
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.005

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207