MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W332277148

Canada: Responsible Care?

2005· article· en· W332277148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Rehner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of transportation law, logistics, and policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Safety Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazardous wasteStatuteEmergency responseGovernment (linguistics)BunkerContingency planBusinessEnforcementEngineeringLaw enforcementEnvironmental planningForensic engineeringWaste managementPolitical scienceLawEnvironmental scienceMedical emergencyManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2005, 43 Canadian National Railway (CN) oil cars derailed into an Alberta lake, spilling about 194,000 gallons of bunker crude and pole-treating oil. This article questions the response of both the railway and the government in responding to this incident. Although CN will have to bear all the clean-up costs and may be charged under several statutes for the incident, this derailment appears to be part of a disturbing new pattern. Within one month of the Alberta incident, there were 3 other derailments, two with spills of hazardous materials. CN's allegedly poor response to the Alberta incident calls into question their commitment to the Canadian Chemical Producers' Responsible Care program, which requires members such as CN to have an up-to-date operational transportation emergency response plan, contain and clean up releases, provide technical advisors at accident scenes and assist local emergency response forces. Although industry has the primary responsibility of protecting the citizenry against incidents arising out of the manufacture and transport of hazardous materials, government also has a crucial monitoring and enforcement role. The increase in railroad incidents suggests that the Canadian Transportation Safety Board needs to take a larger role in holding the responsible carriers to account.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.815
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of transportation law, logistics, and policySame topicRisk and Safety AnalysisFrench-language works237,207