MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082647838 · doi:10.1080/08920753.2012.652517

Canada's Oceans Policy Framework: An Overview

2012· article· en· W2082647838 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

VenueCoastal Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisdictionContext (archaeology)PremiseArcticMultitudeThe arcticPolitical scienceOceanographyGeographyLawGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The myth of national ocean policymaking is that there is a single path, structure, or instrument within which ocean policy is considered, adopted, implemented, and, where necessary, enforced. The reality is that a State and its citizens interact with the oceans in a multitude of different manners that defy and undermine an easy definition of national ocean policymaking as an explanation of that relationship. Within this premise, this article focuses on four matters respecting the framework of Canada's oceans policymaking: (a) where is Canada's oceans space in the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans and the extent of jurisdiction that Canada can exercise over its adjacent ocean areas; (b) what is the constitutional context for oceans policymaking in Canada; (c) how are fisheries, hydrocarbons, and shipping legislatively and administratively managed; and (d) the 1996 Oceans Act and integrated ocean management.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.305 · 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