MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2249720264

When Certainty is Far From Certain

2011· article· en· W2249720264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam Chamberlain

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic Conditions · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertaintyTimelineJurisdictionProcess (computing)VettingWork (physics)EnforcementPolitical scienceLegal certaintyBusinessOperations researchEngineeringEnvironmental planningLawComputer scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In late summer of 2010 when the German Federal Institute of Geoscience entered into an agreement with Natural Resources Canada to conduct seismic testing in Canada's North, they believed they had correctly submitted all of the appropriate paperwork right up until they received an injunction which eradicated two years of preparation and removed their window of opportunity to proceed. It is well known that much of the engineering work done in the marine arctic environment requires several permits and approvals. Indeed, the overlapping jurisdiction of various national and international bodies along with territorial, provincial, state and local governments has created a patchwork quilt of regulatory regimes and agencies responsible for the implantation and enforcement of these numerous regulatory requirements. In this reality, it can be extremely challenging to determine which approvals and permits are required for any particular project or undertaking and the appropriate regulatory bodies with which to engage . However it's also becoming increasingly apparent that once those approvals are obtained there is no clear sense of whether they will be adequate to allow the project to proceed. Traditionally, proponents have created project timelines that have assumed (understandably) that once environmental and other approvals are obtained they will have certainty that they may proceed. This paper will describe some of the reasons why project approvals do not always provide certainty that the project development process may proceed as planned. One of the most recent example of the nature of uncertainties in this area was the recent (summer, 2010) case referenced above: Qikiqtani Inuit Association v. Canada. The case found that seismic testing that had been thought to have obtained all necessary approvals, could not proceed as the proponent (the government of Canada) had not adequately consulted with the Inuit of the region or accommodated their interests. The case is but one example of such a situation that can cause significant trouble for proponents. This paper will further assess and describe the Qikiqtani case , and discuss additional similar situations where apparently approved undertakings were unexpectedly, but similarly, delayed.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering Under Arctic ConditionsSame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207