Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent amendments to the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) are ambiguous, and the amended Act risks being interpreted in such a way as to undermine the purpose of Alberta’s Land-use Framework (LUF) and result in more land use planning controversy. The LUF is intended to ensure the future economic growth of the province balanced with the achievement of societal and environmental goods. The LUF can be understood as reflecting a modern liberal approach to land use planning such that government regulation is applied to all property, whether publicly or privately owned. This article argues that the resulting amendments are ambiguous and could be interpreted as reflecting a different understanding of property rights rooted in classical liberalism. The result is that the amended ALSA might not be interpreted in such a way that furthers the goals of the LUF. This article suggests that if the legislation is intended to implement the LUF, then any amendments to the ALSA should be unambiguously consistent with the underlying values of the LUF. It also suggests areas where the processes under the Act could be made more open and transparent so as to be more coherent with modern liberalism.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".