Risk management of liability uncertainties to facilitate brownfield redevelopment: Comparing the situation of Canada with the US
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uncertainties associated with liability in brownfield redevelopment and relevant risk management tools are discussed based on a comparative review of the situation in Canada and the United States. The changes of regulations and policies, inherent uncertainties of site assessment and remediation techniques, incidents of contaminant transport and exposure, and variations of economic and financial conditions all lead to the uncertainties of environmental liability. The fear of liability especially the associated uncertainties is the key obstacle for owners or developers to undertake cleanup and redevelopment due to the subsequent unpredictability of economic profitability. Various risk management tools have been gradually developed in the last three decades to address liability uncertainties, both within Canada and the US, among which environmental insurance and innocent owner's shelter from liability are the two most viable instruments to reduce the fear of liability. Policy making and risk management have evolved more slowly in Canada than in the US and there is a trend for Canadian provinces to adopt the successful policies and tools used in the US rather than formulate their own.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".