MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W957642009

Reconocimiento y protección del derecho de acceso a los documentos públicos en Quebec: especial referencia a la Comisión de Acceso a la Información

2015· article· es· W957642009 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clara Velasco Rico

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Catalana de Dret Públic · 2015
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAdministrative Law and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este trabajo se centra en el analisis de la Ley de Acceso a los Documentos Publicos y de proteccion de los datos personales de Quebec, aprobada en 1982. En primer lugar, se examina el objeto de la Ley y los principios fundamentales que la inspiran, asi como su ambito de aplicacion. Posteriormente, se centra en la regulacion especifica del derecho de acceso y se ocupa del regimen de excepciones y restricciones previsto al respecto, asi como el diseno del procedimiento de acceso. A continuacion, se estudian, con especial detenimiento, los mecanismos de proteccion del derecho previstos en la norma, y se presta una atencion al regimen de la Comision de Acceso a la Informacion. Este analisis concluye con unas consideraciones sobre el ejemplo que puede suponer el sistema de garantia del derecho de acceso en Quebec para las Comunidades Autonomas (CCAA). Esta reflexion parece oportuna dado que, actualmente, varias CCAA estan en proceso de elaborar normas de desarrollo de la Ley 19/2013, 9 de diciembre, de transparencia, acceso a la informacion publica y buen gobierno.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Catalana de Dret PúblicSame topicAdministrative Law and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207