MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043197118 · doi:10.1142/s1464333203001310

AUDITING STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRACTICE IN CANADA

2003· article· en· W2043197118 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Bram Noble

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsStrategic environmental assessmentAuditQuality (philosophy)Plan (archaeology)Process (computing)Set (abstract data type)Environmental resource managementStrategic planningProcess managementEnvironmental planningBusinessEnvironmental impact assessmentMeasure (data warehouse)Computer scienceEnvironmental scienceAccountingGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) is taking place in diverse forms, and SEA requirements vary considerably from one nation to the next. While the true measure of effectiveness of SEA is its influence on decision output and policy, plan and program (PPP) outcomes, an effective SEA requires a quality assessment process. This paper suggests that there is no generic set of audit criteria that is appropriate for evaluating the quality of all SEA applications. Auditing SEA quality performance requires criteria that reflect the guidelines and procedural requirements of the institutional arrangements within which SEA is practised. Based on a proposed set of SEA quality performance criteria for Canada, this paper presents the findings of an audit of five national-level Canadian SEA applications.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.010
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and ManagementSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207