Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Alberta’s Bill 37, a provincial plan to reduce greenhouse gases and climate change, and explores the constitutionality of such legislation. Its main focus revolves around a constitutional analysis of Alberta's proposed legislation and its potential incompatibility with federal initiatives used to meet the Government of Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. In this discussion, the authors conclude that Bill 37 would likely be constitutionally valid under the provincial subject matter of property and civil rights, and possibly local undertakings and ownership of provincial public lands. However, the authors dismiss the argument that Alberta's legal position over any federal initiative would be bolstered by the Crown's ownership of provincial resources. The article then looks to the federal government's Kyoto commitments and analyzes the constitutionality of possible federal initiatives under the federal subject matters of taxation, criminal law, trade and commerce and POGG. With both the Alberta and federal plans analyzed, the authors then discuss the potential incompatibility of the plans through three possible scenarios. The article concludes with a brief discussion of the other cooperative measures, such as equivalency agreements and incorporation by reference, which the federal and provincial governments may use to combat the issue of climate change.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".