MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2005991942 · doi:10.3828/bjcs.20.2.1

The Limits of Ecological Modernisation in Canada's Atlantic Provinces

2007· article· en· W2005991942 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Dimitrios Konstadakopulos

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Canadian Studies · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsModernization theoryEcological modernizationPromotion (chess)Sustainable developmentGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceNova scotiaPoliticsPublic administrationEconomic growthEnvironmental planningGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the institutional framework and main policies for the promotion of sustainable development by the Canadian Atlantic provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. It then discusses how strategies and policy prescriptions recommended by the ecological modernisation concept are guiding sustainable development at the regional level. It reveals that provincial assemblies, sub-national levels of government and other political institutions, as well as civic non-governmental organisations and regionally-embedded economic interests, are developing environmental policies that display wider agendas of ecological modernisation. Finally, the article identifies a number of promising approaches and best practice in ecological modernisation. It concludes that while the Canadian federal system is ambitious in its policy of promoting sustainable development, in practice it has been unsuccessful in delivering its own promise.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0190.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Canadian Studies→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→