MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097280216

Whether the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act supports the decision of Service Nova Scotia and Municipal Relations to disclose a Pre- Employment Reference Check.

2006· article· en· W7097280216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFreedom of informationPersonally identifiable informationThird partyNova scotiaService (business)Data Protection Act 1998Information privacy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

portion of a Pre-Employment Reference Check given by the Third Party. SNSMR received an application for access to a record under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FOIPOP”). The Applicant sought access to opinions and views contained in reference checks provided by Third Parties concerning the Applicant. In accordance with Section 22(1) of FOIPOP, SNSMR notified the Third Party of the application. The Third Party did not consent to the disclosure of the Pre-Employment Reference Check. Initially, SNSMR decided to withhold the entire record. However, in a letter dated July 4, 2006, SNSMR notified the Third Party of its decision to release the document in part. SNSMR decided to sever the third party’s personal information from the record and disclose to the Applicant any views or opinions made about the Applicant by the Third Party. SNSMR’s rationale for the decision was based on French v. Dalhousie University, 2003, NSCA 16 wherein the Court concluded that a person’s views or opinions about someone else are not the author’s personal information but rather the personal information of the subject.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0090.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.007

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.282 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207