Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the extent to which Canadian political parties comply with legal requirements set out in the Elections Modernization Act, in the 2019 Federal Election. The two research questions explored will be as follows: did the introduction of the Elections Modernization Act fill the gap for appropriate voter data protection measures in federal elections; and what requirements gaps existed when compared to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This paper finds that the Elections Modernization Act was not effective at protecting voter privacy due to absence of enforcement measures, failure to require adequate detail within the privacy policies, exemptions from Canada’s existing privacy policies, and the disregard for the metadata that exists within personal information. Additionally, it is argued that political parties do not comply with legal requirements and ultimately fall short on global best practices because of inadequate policies and lack of accountability measures. These conclusions suggest that implementing adequate privacy policies is not aligned with the agendas of candidates, as the motivations of elected members and party officials is to (a) increase their influence on voters, and (b) reap success at the ballot box, which can be done more easily and accurately with voter data.
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 | 0.008 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.002 |
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".