X. Country/Region Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, the Canadian federal government undertook a significant shift in its climate change policies. As the fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) drew near, the Canadian environment minister expressed the government's intention to abandon a plan to limit the emissions intensity of large industrial facilities, which it had previously proposed to implement by 1 January 2010. In its place, the environment minister indicated that Canada would consider a cap-and-trade system to follow, both in timing and form, any cap-and-trade legislation the United States was able to pass through Congress. The minister stressed the government's position that if ‘the U.S. does not make a substantial effort going forward, there is nothing Canada can do’ (Jim Prentice, Speaking Notes, 13 November 2009, at <http://www.ec.gc.ca>). Subsequently, on 19 December, Canada and the other parties to the UNFCCC ‘took note’ of the non-binding Copenhagen Accord (UN Draft Decision, Doc. FCCC/CP/2009/L.7 (2009)). As a developed country, Canada agreed to consider submitting a 2020 emissions reduction target by 31 January 2010. Soon after COP-15, the Canadian federal government unofficially indicated its intention to match any greenhouse gas emissions reduction target that the United States would put forward.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".