Une évaluation critique de la première loi canadienne sur le dévéloppement durable (A Critical Assessment of the First Canadian Sustainable Development Act)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: La premibre Loi federale sur le developpement durable (LFDD) a recu la sanction royale le 26 juin 2008. L'adoption de ce texte apparait comme un pas essentiel vers une prise en consideration pertinente du developpement durable par le gouvernement canadien. Bien que cette loi impose I'elaboration et la mise en ceuvre d'une Strategie federale de developpement durable, notre analyse conduit a un constat mitige de cette evolution legislative. Force est de constater que ce texte ne se donne pas les moyens suffisants pour realiser ses ambitions. Ses principales dispositions demeurent imprecises, offrant ainsi un important pouvoir discretionnaire au gouvernement. De plus, ce texte ne sanctionne pas le manquement aux obligations qu'il impose aux ministeres et agences gouvernementaux. Par ailleurs, I'absence d'objectifs explicites et d'une annonce d'education citoyenne semblent rendre diflicile le chemin du Canada vers le progres que constitue le developpement durable. S'il peut etre avancee que la LFDD n'enonce qu'un cadre general, il aurait ete a tout le moins pertinent que cette loi donne des indications sur ces elements tant la reussite d'une Strategie federale de developpement durable en est dependante. La LFDD temoigne donc d'un manque de vision prospective. La question qui demeure entiere est de savoir si la Strategie federale de developpement durable va etre veritablement concue comme le socle de l'ensemble des politiques federales. La reponse a cette interrogation tend vers la negative dans la mesure ou la version preliminaire de cette Strategie ne comporte pour l'essentiel que les aspects stricto sensu environnementaux du developpement durable. Or, seule une appreciation de toutes les dimensions du developpement durable se revele etre le moyen d'assurer au Canada un developpement permettant de repondre aux besoins du present sans compromettre la possibilite, pour les genebrations futures, de satisfaire les leurs. English Abstract: The first Federal Sustainable Development Act (FSDA) received Royal Assent on June 26, 2008. The enactment of this law represents a crucial step toward the Canadian government's actual recognition of the importance of sustainable development. Although this law requires the development and implementation of a Federal Sustainable Development Strategy, our analysis leads us to the conclusion that the evolution of this law has been rather disappointing. It is quite obvious that this law fails to provide satisfactory ways to achieve the objectives it sets out. Its main provisions are imprecise, thus granting the government substantial discretionary powers. The law does not punish the failure on the part of government departments and agencies to meet their obligations. Furthermore, with the law's lack of definite goals and provisions regarding citizenship education, Canada's road toward sustainable development is likely not to be very smooth. Even if it can be argued that the FSDA only sets out a general framework, it would seem appropriate for the law to provide further details on those issues to ensure the success of the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy. The FSDA, in sum, suffers from a lack of vision. One question remains unanswered: will the Federal Sustainable Development Strategy be really designed as the basis for overall federal policies? The answer to this question tends to be negative to the extent that the first draft of this Strategy essentially only includes the environmental aspects of sustainable development. However, Canada needs to take into consideration the various aspects of sustainable development to ensure that its development will be able to satisfy today's needs without impairing the possibility for future generations to satisfy their own needs.
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 | 0.035 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".