Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis examines how climate change, particularly upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), have been considered in Canadian environmental impact assessment (EIA) of energy projects. The legal and policy framework on EIA for energy projects has evolved, and the recent transition from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012 (CEAA 2012) regime to the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) is the most recent change. Although the CEAA 2012 and the IAA share similarities, they have different requirements with respect to GHG emissions. One of the major differences is that the IAA makes climate change considerations an essential factor for the assessment and decision-making phases of the review and approval of a proposed energy project. Under CEAA 2012, climate change considerations were not clearly spelt out, though there were several avenues for GHGs to be considered in the assessment process. This thesis reviews the former regime and practice under CEAA 2012, then examines the new regime, and the GHGs consideration in the EIA process in the United States of America (U.S).
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 | 0.026 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".