MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Policies of Extinction: The Life and Death of Canada's Endangered Species Legislation

2000· article· en· W2047727452 on OpenAlex

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

VenuePolicy Studies Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of WaterlooUniversity of WaterlooYork UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationEndangered speciesStakeholderSustainabilityGovernment (linguistics)Environmental planningPolitical scienceBusinessPublic administrationGeographyEcologyLawBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the attempt by the Canadian Federal Government to pass endangered species legislation (1995). It focuses on the constraints which confront the creation of environmental policy in Canada and identifies jurisdictional overlap and stakeholder conflict as the prime source of difficulties which confronted the Federal Government as it moved through the policy process for creating endangered species legislation. The wide‐ranging consultation process leading up to the creation of the legislation provided ample opportunity for powerful interests to undermine the protection of endangered species. The article concludes with a discussion of endangered species legislation as an example of the failure of the “crisis management” approach to conservation and sustainability.

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 categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.148
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.226 · 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