Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In late summer of 2010 when the German Federal Institute of Geoscience entered into an agreement with Natural Resources Canada to conduct seismic testing in Canada's North, they believed they had correctly submitted all of the appropriate paperwork right up until they received an injunction which eradicated two years of preparation and removed their window of opportunity to proceed. It is well known that much of the engineering work done in the marine arctic environment requires several permits and approvals. Indeed, the overlapping jurisdiction of various national and international bodies along with territorial, provincial, state and local governments has created a patchwork quilt of regulatory regimes and agencies responsible for the implantation and enforcement of these numerous regulatory requirements. In this reality, it can be extremely challenging to determine which approvals and permits are required for any particular project or undertaking and the appropriate regulatory bodies with which to engage . However it's also becoming increasingly apparent that once those approvals are obtained there is no clear sense of whether they will be adequate to allow the project to proceed. Traditionally, proponents have created project timelines that have assumed (understandably) that once environmental and other approvals are obtained they will have certainty that they may proceed. This paper will describe some of the reasons why project approvals do not always provide certainty that the project development process may proceed as planned. One of the most recent example of the nature of uncertainties in this area was the recent (summer, 2010) case referenced above: Qikiqtani Inuit Association v. Canada. The case found that seismic testing that had been thought to have obtained all necessary approvals, could not proceed as the proponent (the government of Canada) had not adequately consulted with the Inuit of the region or accommodated their interests. The case is but one example of such a situation that can cause significant trouble for proponents. This paper will further assess and describe the Qikiqtani case , and discuss additional similar situations where apparently approved undertakings were unexpectedly, but similarly, delayed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».