MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1984261051 · doi:10.7202/043113ar

Contamined lands: a Canadian perspective

2005· article· en· W1984261051 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gilles Létourneau, Beverley A. Chomyn

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsStudents Commission
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedressSuperfundLegislationLegislatureBankruptcyClass actionLawDamagesCompensation (psychology)BusinessInsolvencyPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningEngineeringHazardous wasteGeographyState (computer science)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence of contaminated sites in Canada has become a problem of nation-wide concern. Actions at civil and common law based on the traditional requirements of showing that property interests have been affected or personal injury has resulted are inadequate to address widespread harms arising from pollution. At the national level programs and policies have been developed to address clean-up of contaminated sites. At the provincial level legislation is being developed, directed at making persons responsible for the pollution they cause. Nonetheless, there are shortcomings under the present system in matters concerning victim redress and clean-up and restoration of contaminated sites. Victims are still struggling to obtain redress and compensation, especially in cases of defendant bankruptcy. It may be necessary as in the U.S. to create a Superfund to ensure compensation when there are orphan sites or when the defendant has become insolvent. There may be merit in establishing at the Federal level and in the other provinces a class action scheme along the lines of the Quebec model with an Assistance Fund to help litigants. In addition, there is a need to develop in legislation comprehensive requirements of clean-up and restoration of contaminated sites, that can be applied consistently nation-wide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.916

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0250.011
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droit→Same topicEnvironmental law and policy→French-language works237,207→