MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W22398447 · doi:10.29173/alr67

Federal and Alberta Energy Project Regulation Reform — At What Cost Efficiency?

2013· article· en· W22398447 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Rowland J. Harrison, Lars Olthafer, Katie Slipp

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsTransCanada (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Energy lawResource (disambiguation)Public administrationBusinessRegulatory reformRegulatorNatural resourcePublic economicsPolitical scienceEconomicsEnvironmental lawLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes to regulatory regimes at the federal and provincial levels have recently transformed the way that energy resource projects will be considered and approved. The federal Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 and amended National Energy Board Act, along with the Alberta Responsible Energy Development Act, have taken decision-making power away from the regulators to government in an effort to align regulatory decisions with broader government policies. This article examines a number of the effects of the new regimes including the impact that the changes might have on the role of the regulator, the functioning of regulatory processes, and the development of Canada’s natural resources.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0100.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207