MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2941484288 · doi:10.11575/prism/32812

Species at Risk Act: A Comprehensive Inventory of Legislative Documents, 1973-2017

2018· article· en· W2941484288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nadine Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislatureEnforcementLegislative historyPolitical scienceLegislationLaw enforcementWildlifePublic administrationLawBusinessEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The long and complex history of the enactment of the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) made this statute a prime target for a legislative and documentary history. The sheer volume of, and difficulty in locating, documents related to and considered in the development of SARA is vast. In a 30-year period, 18 bills relating to species protection were introduced in the House of Commons. In the past 15 years, 12 amending bills were introduced and 70 pieces of subordinate legislation were registered under SARA (largely regulations and Orders in Council). This legislative and documentary history includes all bills, amendments, and regulations, beginning with the 1973 Speech from the Throne and ending in February 2018. It also includes parliamentary papers and committee reports, related international treaties, regulatory process information, reports and backgrounders from various government departments and non-government organizations (NGO’s), and selected scholarly articles documenting the legislative process. The purpose of this legislative and documentary history is to facilitate an understanding of the legislative framework for SARA and assist with identifying primary legal documents related to endangered species research in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.005

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.225 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesFrench-language works237,207