Economic Recovery in Response to Worldwide Crises: Fiduciary Responsibility and the Legislative Consultative Process with Respect to Bill 150 (Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009) and Bill 197 (COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020) in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Green Energy and Green Economy Act (2009) was an omnibus bill that affected a number of other acts. Due to the breadth of its effects, it should have seen a rigorous consultation and review process; this is especially true given how it would impact First Nations and its explicit mention in the Bill. However, it took less than three months for it to receive Royal Assent and become an act. This timeline is extremely short, even among similar bills within the same context. One of the core reasons for this swift transition is due to its labeling as green energy, which has benign connotations. This effectively allowed the bill to be expedited through the consultation process. The consultation process had many hurdles of its own that inhibited meaningful consultation including its timeframe, location of hearings, accessibility, and other factors. The term green energy was also never defined within the Act, meaning it only served as a form of signaling. This raises many questions with respect to the Government of Ontario’s conduct in the situation and how they handled their legal duty to consult with Indigenous people of Ontario, Canada. There are many voices that have raised issues with this process. If nothing else, this example serves the purpose of demonstrating the dangers of green-labelling, especially to Indigenous people of Canada and other Indigenous groups worldwide.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".