Canadian Challenges in Implementing the Kyoto Protocol: A Cause for Harmonization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 17 December 2002, Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol), taking on binding targets to reduce Canadian emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). Canada's ratification decision and the proposed domestic emissions trading system forming part of Canada's Kyoto implementation plan continue to be the source of considerable disagreement and conflict between the provinces and thefederal government regarding: the practical challenges associated with multiple Canadian jurisdictions implementing emissions trading systems: the current status and legal issues associated with covenants between industry and government(s) to enforce GHG reduction targets; the legal jurisdiction over domestic emissions trading system(s); and the impact on interprovincial and international trade. Each ofthese issues is examined in the unique Canadian legal context. The authors conclude that many ofthe most significant challenges may be mitigated through harmonization and coordination byfederal and provincial governments in a manner that allows for local concerns to be addressed without fragmenting the Canadian emissions markets.
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 | 0.021 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".