The length of environmental review in Canada under the <i>Fisheries Act</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a common misconception among government officials that environmental regulations are bad for economic growth. Citing economic reasons, the Canadian federal government passed legislation in 2012 restricting the length of environmental reviews of new developments, even though review times were not empirically known. Using annual reports to Parliament from 2001 to 2010, we estimated using time-series analyses that review times under the Fisheries Act conformed to the new government mandated review times prior to major legislative changes to federal environmental oversight. The majority of submissions were processed within 1 year for mitigated impacts and within 2 years for authorized impacts. While it is possible that a minority of projects take longer, there is no evidence of large backlogs in the review process, and Canadian review times appear quicker than those in the United States. We highlight the need for empirical estimates of the costs of environmental regulations before governments enact substantial legislative changes that reduce environmental oversight and offer alternate recommendations for expediting environmental review times.
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 | 0.021 | 0.121 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".