- Who runs it
- Gemeente Stein
- Can it affect people?
- Mostly indirectly. It is described as a tool for staff and internal work.
- Possible rights impact: Internal operations
How much do we know?
A source is a published page or document behind a claim. The label measures what is documented, not whether a system is good or safe. Missing information does not prove that a safeguard is missing.
Sources and further reading
- Woo AI chat (Wet open Overheid) / Netherlands Algorithm Register / 2025-07-22
- Netherlands Algorithm Register - official inventory / Netherlands Algorithm Register
optional detailFull record and details
The interface and explanatory guides are translated. Record names, record descriptions, quotations, detailed editorial notes, and linked public documents stay in their published language so evidence is not silently changed.
What it does
Met de Woo AI-chat maken we intern gebruik van de meest recente informatie en jurisprudentie van de Woo. Zo kunnen we onze kennis uitbreiden en de Woo verder implementeren volgens de laatste wettelijke eisen in de huidige implementatiefase. Burgers en bedrijven zien dit terug in de kwaliteit en behandeling van een Woo-verzoek.
If this affects someone
De uitkomsten van de WooChat worden voor de borging van de kwaliteit altijd gecontroleerd door onze juridisch adviseurs en Woo Coordinator.
De bronnen die worden gebruikt zijn: De boeken 'Wet open overheid. Artikelsgewijze toelichting, voor de praktijk besproken', 'Overheid en Openbaarheid'; De wettekst van de Woo; Publicaties van Woo specialist en oprichter van het NKOO. Er zijn verder geen andere bronnen toegevoegd
Sources and further reading
First indexed from Netherlands Algorithm Register on 2026-09-05. Only usable fields from the public record are shown; missing answers remain blank.
Fields were mapped from the linked public record by deterministic code. No generative model wrote this text.
Facts to check
- Who runs it
- Gemeente Stein
- Life area
- Public sector
- Proof level
- Source-backed
- Footnotes
- 2
- updated
- 16 months ago
The score orders work, not people.
Review priority rises for rights-sensitive uses, missing sources, unanswered accountability fields, and old evidence. Strong official documentation lowers it. The score is not a verdict on safety, fairness, or legality.
A missing field means the attached public sources did not answer it. Coverage is uneven, publication does not prove performance, and a certificate has a defined boundary.
Previous versions
- Imported58 days agoPartialImported from Netherlands Algorithm Register.
Help check this record.
Add a public source, challenge a claim, or point out a missing way to reach a person.
A submitted name, email, description, source, or correction is used only to verify the record and prevent abuse. It is not published automatically.