Sources of uncertainties in environmental assessment: Lessons about uncertainty disclosure and communication from an oil sands extraction project in Northern Alberta
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates practices of uncertainty disclosure and communication in Canadian environmental assessment (EA) in the context of the Joslyn North Oil Sands Mine project. Nineteen interviews with project stakeholders were conducted, revealing significant uncertainties about the project, attributed to multiple factors including lack of clarity in the terms of reference and requirements of the proponent; the project’s predicted impacts and proponent commitments to mitigation; cumulative effects and the potential for effects interaction with other projects; Aboriginal engagement, including engagement processes and broader socio-political context; and poor uncertainty disclosure and communication practices. Some uncertainties were disclosed but at times downplayed to render the project more palatable through the EA process. Informants stated that this is not an uncommon occurrence in oil sands EA. Recommendations to improve uncertainty disclosure and communication in EA and enhance the consideration of uncertainties in decision-making are provided.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it