Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’evolution du contentieux climatique canadien met en evidence que la nature et les objectifs de ces recours sont fort varies de meme que les arguments mobilises. Par ailleurs, les dynamiques a l’œuvre temoignent des avancees realisees en termes de recevabilite et de preuve, tout en pointant les difficultes auxquelles ce contentieux est confronte. La majorite des recours, en particulier en matiere de controle de la legalite des decisions administratives, conteste les processus de delivrance des autorisations environnementales au motif qu’ils negligent les implications climatiques des activites autorisees et releve aisement des competences judiciaires. D’autre part, les recours recents qui contestent les bilans et le niveau d’ambition des gouvernements en matiere de reduction des gaz a effet de serre soulevent des questions de nature politique et scientifique complexes, de meme que le principe de la separation des pouvoirs. Ces derniers recours invitent neanmoins le pouvoir judiciaire a jouer son role de chien de garde du respect des droits fondamentaux et des processus decisionnels, voire des lois qu’un gouvernement nouvellement elu s’empresserait de modifier afin de reduire ses ambitions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.005 |
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.
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".