Filling the integrity gaps in protection of species at risk through litigation and stewardship : Policy evaluation with a focus on Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many integrity gaps in the federal and provincial systems designed to protect endangered and threatened species in Canada. NGOs (Non-governmental organizations) and other stakeholders can get involved in the process of protecting species at risk, by participating in collaborative efforts through volunteerism and stewardship efforts. NGOs can also bring issues of species-at-risk protection to court through litigation. This thesis began by exploring the integrity gaps in the federal and provincial processes for species at risk protection. The thesis then examined different initiatives undertaken by NGOs to combat this issue, the first being litigation and how it can be used as a strategy to help protect species at risk, and hold government accountable. The thesis also explored the rationale behind NGO actions, as well as the possible outcomes from these court cases. Next, the thesis discussed volunteer efforts undertaken by NGOs and other stakeholders. The research was supplemented with valuable qualitative interview data from scientists, members of NGOs, members of government, and a lawyer. The thesis concluded with recommendations for further action and policy measures that can be taken to protect species at risk
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 | 0.043 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".