Bibliographic record
Abstract
In May, the federal Conservative government unveiled a new goal for Canada that called for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to drop 30 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2030. In a general election, held on 19 October, the Liberal Party of Canada won a majority of the seats in Canada’s House of Commons and, shortly thereafter, formed a new government. The Conservative government had withdrawn Canada from the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in December 2011, and in the 2015 general election, the Liberals ran on a platform to ‘provide national leadership and join with the provinces and territories to take action on climate change, put a price on carbon, and reduce carbon pollution.’ The Liberals also promised to ‘end the cycle of federal parties—of all stripes—setting arbitrary targets without a real federal/provincial/territorial plan in place’ and undertook to meet with provincial and territorial leaders at a first ministers conference within ninety days of the twenty-first Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Paris to ‘establish a pan-Canadian framework for combatting climate change’ with ‘national emissions-reduction targets’ (Real Change: A New Plan for a Strong Middle Class, 39–40). The promised first ministers’ conference took place in March 2016, and a further meeting was scheduled for October 2016.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".