Reflexive legal processes for environmental bridging organizations in the Calgary Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
n Canadian provinces, municipalities are responsible for most land use management on private lands, and are encouraged to protect provincially owned natural resources from local land use impacts. Policy and regulatory gaps exist at the regional-scale for managing municipal land use impacts on natural resources, such as air, water and ecological resources that cross multiple municipal boundaries and jurisdictions. In the Calgary Metropolitan Region in southern Alberta, three multi-stakeholder environmental bridging organizations (the Calgary Regional Partnership, the Bow River Basin Council, and Calgary Regional Airshed Zone) emerged, connecting municipal, public and private stakeholders who shared interests in land use, watershed and airshed management, respectively. These organizations co-created natural resource management plans (co-created plans) to address transboundary and interjurisdictional issues not addressed through provincial laws or municipal bylaws. Because the organizations have no legal mandate or authority, they operate alongside the provincial environmental policy and regulatory system. The Calgary Metropolitan Region provided a demonstration context for conducting transdisciplinary research, combining emerging theories of reflexive law, environmental governance, and bridging organizations. Reflexive legal theory is deliberately applied to support and legitimize the role of environmental bridging organizations in ‘bridging’ environmental policy and regulatory gaps between provincial and municipal authorities at a regional-scale.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".