Understanding the tension between Arctic environmental protection and the Canadian government's approach to offshore oil and gas development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The balance between resource development and environmental protection has always been a difficult one.Nowhere is this more true than in the Arctic, a vital ecosystem whose future is at the forefront of climate change.While Canada has committed itself to Ecosystem-Based Management (EBM) as the system through which the state will manage and protect its fragile northern land and seascapes, the extent to which this commitment is upheld by the current federal government is unknown.This research project will establish that Canada has only developed and incorporated its EBM system, within its framework for offshore oil and gas development, to a minimal extent.Such a baseline will be established through the assessment of relevant Canadian legislation and regulations along the North Pacific Marine Science Organization's (PICES's) typology on EBM.Environmental, political and economic variables at play in the Arctic will also be considered to reveal the Conservative government's active efforts to prepare, as well as facilitate, the future development of resource projects in the North.Accordingly, this research project will shed further light on the inherent tension that lies at the heart of resource development and environmental protection.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".