Power and Public Administration: Applying a Transformative Approach to Freedom of/Access to Information Research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freedom of Information (FOI) or Access to Information (ATI) legislation regulates the right to make written requests for government records. Previous research either interrogates the effectiveness of FOI/ATI legislation for advancing government transparency or positions the requests as a means for gathering data on government institutions. This article intervenes in this debate by treating FOI/ATI mechanisms as the vantage point from which to examine questions about power in public administration. Adopting a transformative approach, this article explores the potential of using FOI/ATI requests as a liberatory tool that enables the analysis of power dynamics in public administration. For this purpose, the author draws upon her experience with Canada's ATI regime and requests from the Immigration and Refugee Board. This article documents how ATI requests reveal policy tensions within the Board related to case and performance management, as well as patterns of front-line staff resistance to these measures. It goes on to examine complaints about delays made to the ATI watchdog which expose the attribution of ATI resources towards non-ATI responsibilities.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it