MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W127657506 · doi:10.29173/alr75

The Elusive Goal of Regulatory Independence and the National Energy Board: Is Regulatory Independence Achievable? What Does Regulatory "Independence" Mean? Should We Pursue It?

2013· article· en· W127657506 on OpenAlex
Rowland J. Harrison

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndependence (probability theory)Energy independenceRegulatory agencyAgency (philosophy)Political scienceLaw and economicsLawPublic administrationBusinessAccountingEconomicsSociologyEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores recent amendments to the National Energy Board Act that have fundamentally changed the National Energy Board’s role as a regulatory agency. Specifically, it examines the Board’s independence before and after the amendments, focusing on the controversy that gave rise to the Board’s independence and the controversy that in turn removed it. Though the independence of the Board must now be understood differently in light of the amendments, this article concludes that the Board still plays an important role in societal choices regarding pipeline projects.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.844
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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