Sustainability Lost: Comments on 'Planning for a Sustainable Future: A Federal Sustainable Development Strategy for Canada'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary identifies limitations in “Planning for a sustainable Future,” a draft Canadian federal government strategy for sustainable development released early 2010. Positive elements of the report include the recognition that sustainable development requires integrated decision-making across a broad institutional and jurisdictional landscape, pan-jurisdictional/institutional expenditure planning and accounting, and clear, unambiguous and meaningful surveillance and monitoring systems to inform performance evaluation and adaptive management. However, the report fails to clearly describe the nature, scope and causes of the unsustainability of Canadian development. The report does not discuss how existing Canadian policies related to energy, natural resources, or taxation undermine sustainability. There is a heavy emphasis on remedial, more costly measures rather than on preventative initiatives, and the strategy does not prioritize initiatives by relative effectiveness. The draft strategy does not make clear whether the government will commit the resources needed for implementation. Significant revisions are needed to enable the strategy to achieve real progress toward Canadian sustainability.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".