MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Demystifying Canada’s Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA): The good, the bad and the unclear elements

2023· article· en· W4387951216 on OpenAlex
Kin‐Choong Yow

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Law, and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to modernize federal privacy laws, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-27 on June 16, 2022. This bill encompasses three acts, among them the noteworthy Artificial Intelligence Data Act (AIDA). AIDA, along with the CPPA (Consumer Privacy Protection Act), forms part of Bill C-27, under the legislative initiative named the Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022. This landmark legislation signifies Canada’s inaugural step toward regulating artificial intelligence (AI). Consequently, it is imperative for Canadian researchers to stay informed about this nascent proposal. This paper delves into the salient aspects of Canada’s proposed Artificial Intelligence and Data Act, shedding light on both its addressed and overlooked facets.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducation, Law, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207