MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1871264458 · doi:10.1080/14615517.2015.1063811

Good practices for environmental assessment

2015· article· en· W1871264458 on OpenAlex
Chris Joseph, Thomas Gunton, Murray B. Rutherford

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSimon Fraser University
KeywordsEnvironmental planningEnvironmental impact assessmentBest practiceEnvironmental resource managementBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental assessment (EA) has emerged in the last five decades as one of the primary management tools that governments use to protect the environment. However, despite substantial theoretical development and practical experience, there are concerns that EA is not meeting its objectives. This article develops a set of good practices to improve EA. An integrated list of proposed good practices is developed based on a literature review of impact assessment research and related fields of study. The practices are then evaluated by surveying experts and practitioners involved in EA of tar sands (also known as oil sands) development in Canada. In all, 74 practices grouped under 22 themes are recommended to improve EA. Key unresolved issues in EA requiring future research are identified.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.391 · 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