Assessment of Canadian federal and provincial legislation to conserve native and managed pollinators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Declining pollinator numbers in Canada is an issue of concern requiring active conservation of native, wild, and managed species. Federal and provincial legislation was examined to determine whether Canada has the capacity to manage native pollinators. Hard legislation was chosen based on its potential to contain provisions for pollinator protection. The wording, specific statements within each act, and the context in which they are used, were examined. The legislation was categorized into one of three classes: a) has explicit provisions for pollinator conservation, b) is related to, but no explicit provisions are present, c) has nothing to do with pollinator conservation. Results showed that Canada has inadequate legislative provisions for native pollinator conservation at the federal and provincial level. There are few specific provisions dealing directly with native pollinators, but some legislation alludes to it. Existing legislation pertains to the protection of managed pollinators, especially the western honeybee (Apis mellifera). Therefore, such provincial acts could be amended to include all native bees and other pollinator species to ensure that their ecological and agricultural services continue. The federal National Parks Act and the Species at Risk Act (and their provincial counterparts) could be amended similarly. Effective pollinator conservation requires management, research, education and monitoring, but the enabling legislative provisions should be created for this to happen.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".