MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028040080

Discussion Following the Remarks of Mr. Power and Mr. Cole

2003· article· en· W7028040080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada-United States law journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCriminal Law and Evidence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterImmigrationDeportationPhonePower (physics)Residence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

David Cole, you did you not disappoint.We have ten minutes for questions.I am sure they are going to be plenty after those two thought-provoking presentations.MS. JANSSEN: I guess the good news is that in Canada, we do not discriminate against foreign nationals, yet, probably because the Immigration Act has a provision saying specifically that the Charter applies, and the Charter is not distinct in all clauses between nationals and non-nationals.But, having said that, there is a real issue, and the PR card is interesting for the information of the audience.The PR or permanent residence card, has been in the works for years and years and did not come out because they could not find a way to make it secure enough.After September 1 1 th , it was finally announced.As of June of last year, every new foreign national that becomes a permanent resident in Canada must have a PR card.Anyone who is a permanent resident and not a citizen, who does not have a PR card at the end of this year, will not be allowed back in the country until he can get one.It will be very tough to get one outside of the country.It is a way for us to eliminate people who are not there all the time.On the privacy issue, in Canada when you phone in you can do so as an immigrant or wanting to be an immigrant.As long as you have your name, address, postal code, phone number, and file number you can actually see not only where you are in immigration and what you have written and whose written for you, but you can also see every time you have had a traffic ticket or been stopped for a speeding ticket.Our police reports are already integrated with our immigration information.Beyond that our immigration information is integrated with our citizenship application information, which is integrated with health information.Legal or not, you can already get our computer systems under FAUS and under CAPES is the International system.Since you can already get all that all information, what are the legalities of this mixed information?MR.POWER: My short answer is that every rule has an exception.When people think about the Privacy Act in the Canadian context, you think this is going to keep my personal information private.When you look at section 82 of the Privacy Act, you look at exceptions associated with it.If there is lawful authority under another act, it can be disclosed.You can therefore have a legal basis under the authority that I suspect, certainly, under the Departmental legislation, perhaps under IRPA, you probably have authority in there for the linking of all this information.If you have that authority, then there is nothing under the Privacy Act that would prevent you

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0150.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1020.069

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada-United States law journalSame topicCriminal Law and EvidenceFrench-language works237,207