Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary: The Applicant requested a review of the decision of Saskatchewan Justice (Justice) to extend the 30 day response deadline mandated by The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) by an additional 15 days. Justice employed section 12(1)(b) of the Act claiming that it could not reasonably complete “consultations” that were necessary in order to properly comply with the Applicant’s application within the 30 day time limit. The Commissioner determined that Justice did not properly invoke this subsection as it did not initiate consultations in a timely manner and many of those activities described by Justice as “consultations” did not qualify as consultations within the meaning of the Act. The notice provided to the Applicant met the requirements of section 12(2) of the Act. However, the response did not meet the requirements of section 7(2)(d) and subsequently section 12(3) of the Act as Justice did not adequately identify which exemptions applied to each severed line item of the record nor did it offer adequate reasons for the refusal to permit access to certain records.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.787 | 0.754 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".