Bibliographic record
Abstract
This second edition of Canadian Natural Resource and Environmental Policy is different from the first in a number of important ways.First, as a result of using the book in the classroom, it became evident that students intuitively understood the nature of the new environmental paradigm of sustainable development and that of bioregionalism (even if they did not use these terms).What students were grappling with, however, was why these new paradigms were not shifting resource and environmental policy in any real substantive fashion.As a result, we decided to set up the first chapter in a way that would situate the ideas behind the development of environmental policy into a spectrum and discuss the manner in which each is held or supported by different actors involved in environmental and resource policy making.This will help students to understand why some ideas are not always easily incorporated into the institutional structures of government.Second, we have added additional graphic elements in the form of figures throughout the book to illustrate key concepts, processes, and developments.We believe that this will strengthen the book's usefulness in the classroom and help students understand the variables that impact the shape of resource and environmental policy.Third, we have included boxed materials at the end of each chapter that focus on a single major contemporary environmental issue event: the development and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and greenhouse gases.This has been done in order to better illustrate to students the impact of ideas and of the socioeconomic and institutional context on the policy cycle.These materials demonstrate the range of environmental ideas held by actors in the environmental policy community; show how jurisdictional issues mire the process of policy implementation; and make obvious the need to consider actors, ideas, interests, and
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.521 | 0.257 |
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".