MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27971470 · doi:10.29173/alr321

Municipal “Direction, Control and Management” of Local Wetlands and Associated Riparian Lands: Section 60 of Alberta’s Municipal Government Act

2009· article· en· W27971470 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Judy Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRiparian zoneSection (typography)Local governmentSustainabilityWatershed managementEnvironmental planningLegislaturePublic administrationGovernment (linguistics)Control (management)Plan (archaeology)Flood controlBusinessWatershedEnvironmental resource managementLawPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyFlood mythManagementEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Section 60 of the Municipal Government Act authorizes municipal “direction, control and management” of Alberta’s rivers, streams, watercourses, lakes, and other natural bodies of water within the municipality. There is little legal interpretation of s. 60, and even less municipal water body management planning, or water management plan implementation at the local level. In this article the author reviews s. 60, including the legislative history of the phrase “direction, control and management.” Section 60 is interpreted in light of constitutional doctrines and Alberta Water Act provisions for water management planning. “Watershed management planning” is underway in Alberta pursuant to Water For Life: Alberta’s Strategy for Sustainability and municipalities have a role to play.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207