MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2207461419 · doi:10.11575/prism/34275

A Review of the Environmental Enforcement Culture in Alberta in Relation to the Oil Sands

2013· review· en· W2207461419 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chilenye Nwapi

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGovernment of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsOil sandsEnforcementRelation (database)Natural resource economicsBusinessEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyLawArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the environmental enforcement culture in Alberta with a view to ascertaining what mechanisms are in place in Alberta for responding to the commission of environmental offences in the context of the oil sands and the extent to which those mechanisms are being used. The paper identifies and discusses a number of enforcement mechanisms available in Alberta, including administrative penalties, orders, warnings and prosecutions. The paper observes that there is a clear policy towards increased penalties and that creative sentencing is now the norm in the enforcement of environmental offences in Alberta. Lastly, the paper finds that the legal and policy framework for environmental enforcement in Alberta has been offender-focused, with little attention being paid to the plight of victims of environmental offences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207