Municipal Sustainability and Climate Planning: A Study of 38 Canadian Local Governments’ Plans and Reports
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even with the benefits of sustainability and climate change reporting, there is limited information on how municipalities are reporting on performance for external stakeholders in comparison with private sector organizations. The purpose of this research was to gain an understanding of the current state of sustainability and climate change reporting at the local level and to investigate the extent to which municipalities across Ontario, Canada, report. We used content analysis to identify the presence or non-presence of information on the websites of 38 municipalities and analyzed the results using descriptive statistics. Our analysis showed that the sample municipalities were not widely reporting on sustainability or climate change performance. Also, we identified a gap between the number of plans and reports produced by sample municipalities, with the latter being less common, indicating a need for an improved evaluation of plan implementation. Further, we found that a provincial regulation that required municipalities to make their energy conservation and demand management plans public did not guarantee publication of the plan on a municipality’s website. This study contributes to the growing field of sustainability and climate change planning and reporting by local governments and offers empirical evidence specific to Ontario, Canada.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it