Bibliographic record
Abstract
Joana Setzer and Catherine Higham, from the London School of Economics’s Grantham Research Institute, observed in their June report, Global Trends in Climate Change Litigation: 2022 Snapshot, that the frequency of climate change litigation around the world has more than doubled since 2015 ( at 1). Indeed, in Canada, the year saw three key matters that are currently pending reach the courts. First, in Sierra Club Canada Foundation et al v Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada et al, the Supreme Court was asked to judicially review whether the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (MoE) approval of the Bay du Nord Development Project was reasonable. Second, the World Wildlife Fund Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation, with the support of Ecojustice Canada, applied to the Federal Court of Appeal to review the federal decision to extend twenty oil and gas ‘sleeper’ permits that were originally granted in the late 1960s and 1970s. Third, the case Sierra Club of British Columbia Foundation v British Columbia Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, was heard by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in October 2022. The BC Sierra Club alleged that the BC MoE’s 2021 Climate Change Accountability Report did not meet the statutory obligation under the Climate Change Accountability Act, SBC 2007, c 42, (CCAA) to disclose British Columbias plans to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets. The CCAA requires the government of British Columbia to publicly disclose their yearly progress towards achieving climate targets. The BC Sierra Club alleged that the report lacks a plan on how the government will reach the CCAA’s GHG emission reduction targets for 2025, 2040, and 2050 as well as the targets set for the oil and gas sector. A decision. is expected early next year.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.690 | 0.419 |
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".