MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319788239 · doi:10.1080/14615517.2023.2175503

EA simplification: Canadian processes and challenges

2023· article· en· W4319788239 on OpenAlexaffabout
Bram Noble

Bibliographic record

VenueImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Subject (documents)Resource (disambiguation)Computer scienceEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementManagement scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementBusinessEnvironmental scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental Assessment (EA) has been the subject of much debate about its role in resource development. Some have argued that EA in Canada is too complex and should be simplified to enable timely and efficient project development decisions; others have argued that the scope of EA should be expanded to tackle larger environmental and societal challenges, many of which extend well-beyond individual development projects. This paper reflects on past and recent reforms in Canadian federal EA to simplify EA requirements and processes, alongside simplification of the increasingly complex issues that are being introduced to EA.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207