Commentary. Desperately seeking sanction: Canadian extractive companies and their public partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, a private member's bill was introduced in the House of Commons to create accountability mechanisms for government political and financial support to extractive companies whose overseas operations are associated with conflict, environmental degradation or human rights abuses. Bill C-300 received broad endorsement but was ultimately defeated in the House of Commons by a slim margin. This article examines the origins of the bill, the perspectives of diverse stakeholders and the political dynamics surrounding the bill's advancement through the legislative process. Résumé En 2009, un projet loi privée était déposé à la Chambre des communes pour que le soutien financier et politique du gouvernement canadien aux entreprises d'extraction qui sont associées à des conflits, la dégradation environnemental ou les violations des droits humains soit redevable aux contribuables canadiens. La loi C-300 a fait l'objet d'un soutient plutôt important, mais elle a été défaite par faible majorité. Cet article explore les origines de la loi, les perspectives des parties prenantes et les dynamiques politiques associées à cette loi.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.048 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".