The biodiversity crisis in Canada: failures and challenges of federal and sub-national strategic and legal frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Negative biodiversity trends are evident in Canada, in spite of its ecological and economic wealth and high governance capacity. We examined the current implementation of Canada’s national biodiversity strategy—the planning instrument to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity—through its existing legal framework. We did this by evaluating biodiversity-related strategies and plans and 201 federal, provincial, and territorial laws. We found that while most jurisdictions claim dedicated attention to biodiversity, there is little evidence of an integrated approach within provinces and territories and across the federation. Biodiversity conservation led by governments underscores the need for considerations of species and ecosystem services to be mainstreamed into economic and development decision-making. Key challenges to this include Canada’s unusual degree of decentralized constitutionally ascribed authority over natural assets and its historical and continued economic emphasis on extraction of natural resources—a conflict of interest for jurisdictions. Transitioning to scale-appropriate planning and integrated decision-making that can address the pressures and causes of biodiversity conservation in Canada will require transformative change. Law reform, while necessary, will not succeed unless accompanied by a whole-of-government approach, a shift to a bio-centric mindset, innovative governance (particularly Indigenous-led conservation), and federal leadership with strong levels of financial investment.
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 | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".