Global Governance Implications for Responsible Investing in Canada: An Analysis of Public Service Pension Plans Investment Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Responsible investing (RI) has become a hot topic in the global investment world and has gained momentum over the last decade. 1Attempts by global governance actors, such as the United Nations, to develop standardized policies for RI integration have been taken up by national governments.In Canada, for example, crown corporations are required to adopt the recommendations and disclosures of the Task Force for Climate Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) by 2022. 2 Despite growing international and domestic governance approaches for RI incorporation, in the summer of 2021, five of Canada's largest investment funds, including the management funds for provincial pension plans in both Quebec (QC) and British Columbia (BC) as well as the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, increased their investments in Canada's oil sands. 3This comes despite promises made by these portfolios to decrease their environmental impact and commit to RI, which, importantly, they note may come from exercising their voting rights to act as advocates for responsible business practices in the companies they are invested in, rather than simply divesting their funds. 4
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".