MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056819641 · doi:10.1504/ijetm.2003.004118

Constitutional protection of the environment in a federal country: Canadian experience

2003· article· en· W2056819641 on OpenAlex
Peter Bowal

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

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Technology and Management · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionConstitutionGovernment (linguistics)SovereigntyPolitical scienceLawEnvironmental protectionFederalismFederal jurisdictionSovereign immunityPublic administrationGeographyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National environmental protection through law is a relatively recent initiative. The written national constitutions of federal countries, such as Canada, did not originally provide for which level of government would enjoy the primary constitutional authority to regulate for environmental protection. Today, a legal jurisdiction must be interpreted and declared from an old imperial document that did not foresee the environment as a discrete subject for regulation. This article describes the experience of how each of two exclusively sovereign levels of government in the same country, the courts and the constitution have combined over the last half century to establish a unique regime of environmental protection in Canada, and how that regime continues to be developed.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.232 · 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