Justice Denied: Why Was There No Public Inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic Disaster?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the reasons why, despite the magnitude and significance of the Lac-Mégantic disaster, no formal public inquiry was called into the tragedy. In doing so it explores the substantive and political rationales for establishing public inquiries in circumstances like Lac-Mégantic, and the reasons why the various investigations that have been undertaken by the Transportation Safety Board and others into the disaster do not constitute an adequate substitute for a formal inquiry. The paper then employs a modified institutional-ideological analytical framework to examine the landscape, ideational, societal, and institutional factors that have worked against the calling of an inquiry. The paper concludes that the concept of a formal inquiry likely faced major opposition at the political and official levels within the Government of Canada, as well as major non-governmental actors in the transportation and fossil fuel sectors. Finally, the paper discusses the implications of the decision not to call an inquiry in the Lac-Mégantic case for the role of inquiries in similar circumstances in the 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".