MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010694933 · doi:10.3152/147154602781766681

Strategic environmental assessment of Canadian energy policy

2002· article· en· W2010694933 on OpenAlex
Bram Noble

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrategic environmental assessmentEnvironmental policyEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceBusinessNatural resource economicsPolitical scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents a multi-criteria methodological framework for the application of strategic environmental assessment (SEA). The methodology, based on a generic seven phase assessment framework, is explained and demonstrated through a case study assessment of alternative options for Canadian energy policy. Five energy policy scenarios are presented and assessed by an expert panel on the basis of several environmental and socio-economic assessment criteria using a paired comparison assessment process. Impact assessment data are aggregated and analyzed using a multi-criteria approach to identify the preferred strategic direction for energy policy development. The robustness of the assessment results is then tested using a sensitivity analysis. Keywords: strategic environmental assessmentCanadaenergy policy

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.326 · 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