MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2489557646 · doi:10.29173/alr373

The National Energy Board as Intermediary Between the Crown, Aboriginal Peoples, and Industry

2015· article· en· W2489557646 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Morris Popowich

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupreme courtOn boardLawPolitical scienceFace (sociological concept)Process (computing)Energy (signal processing)Public administrationSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions have forced the National Energy Board to reconsider its responsibilities with respect to Aboriginal peoples. This has impacted the Board's ability to clearly articulate its policies and procedures, specifically in the area of consultation with Aboriginal peoples, as the legal standard for consultation seems to change from year to year and stakeholders on all sides of the regulatory process press the Board to interpret these legal requirements in a way that suits their interests best. This article outlines challenges facing the Board with respect to consultation with First Nations and identifies strategies through which it has attempted to address them. Specifically, it describes the Board's policies on consultation and its administrative response to the MacKemie Valley pipeline regulatory review. The article assesses the viability of these strategies in light of challenges the Board is likely to face in the near future.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207