Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION B ill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, 1 was introduced into the Manitoba Legislature on 16 November 2005.It was met with extensive debate throughout the legislative process.As Bill 11 passed through the Legislature it attracted media attention and was met with both official and public opposition at the Standing Committee of Social and Economic Development hearing on 5 June 2006.Subsequently Bill 11 was amended and given Royal Assent on 13 June 2006, with only some of its sections declared to come into force on 20 November 2006.The initial intention behind BillIl, according to a Manitoba Government news release, was to "keep heating cost increases manageable for Manitoba consumers during a period of instability in natural gas prices.,,2The bill's objectives in accomplishing this goal were twofold: to create a ceiling for the maximum level of natural gas prices; and to establish a fund financed by revenue from electricity exports to control costs and to support conservation, efficiency and alternatives to natural gas.3 This paper will examine stakeholder concerns with respect to natural gas regulation and the government rationale behind the introduction of Bill 11.It will also explore the forces that amended Bill 11, which ultimately led to the enactment of a significantly altered bilL Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, 4th Sess., 38 th Leg" Manitoba, 2005 (assented to 13 June 2006, S.M. 2006, c. 5) .Manitoba Government.News Release, "Bill 11 and Mild Winter Offer Opportunity to invest in Heating Efficiency" (30 January 2006), online: Manitoba Government
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".