MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163858148 · doi:10.29173/mlj966

The Biofuels and Gasoline Tax Amendment Act

2006· article· en· W3163858148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jacob Birch

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGasolineAmendmentBiofuelLaw and economicsBusinessEconomicsLawWaste managementPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Underneath the Golden Boy 'Manitoba gasohol' is defined as 'gasohol that contains no denatured ethanol manufactured outside of Manitoba'.Bill 2 was submitted for first reading in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly on 21 November 2003.Six days later, Bill 2 went through second reading and was referred to committee hearings for 2 December 2003.The government made no secret of the fact that it was trying to push this legislation through the legislature as quickly as possible, to help make the Manitoba ethanol industry qualify for federal grant money.4 On 4 December 2003, Bill 2 went through third reading and was passed.The bill provides that the Act will come into force on a day fixed by proclamation.It was the second time the bill was introduced to the legislature.On 23 April 2003, nine days before Gary Doer called an election, The Biofuels Act 5 was introduced.The call of the election killed the original bill.While there are some notable differences between the two bills, in substance the two bills are very similar.Bill 2 is an important piece of legislation, with significant financial implications for the petroleum industry, Manitoba consumers and taxpayers, and rural farmers.Yet Bill 2 was hurried through the legislature, without significant debate or opposition.I will attempt in this paper to explain why this has happened.I will also look at the background and purpose of the legislation, and try to answer the question of whether this legislation is a good idea for Manitoba.I have come to the conclusion that only time will tell whether The Biofuels and Gasoline Tax Amendment Act is an excellent, average or terrible idea.It could be any of the above.That is why the lack of significant debate and opposition to Bill 2 was surprising. II. BACKGROUNDThe government says that a gasohol mandate is in the economic and environmental interests of Manitoba.6 On the economic side, the Manitoba economy currently loses $430 million annually in income transfers because of its imports of gasoline from other jurisdictions.7 If 4 Manitoba, Legislative Assembly, Hansard, Volume LIV No.6, (27 November 2003) (Hon.Tim Sale) 5

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.006

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManitoba Law JournalSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207