Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like all policy areas, environmental, energy, and natural resources policies have transformed significantly during Canada's history.These policy evolutions are a result of changing values and knowledge.In addition, four underlying features of Canadian policy (federal, provincial and territorial) have strongly influenced energy and environmental policy, and to a lesser extent, natural resources policy.These features are the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments over natural resources; the regional nature of natural resource endowments; the United States' prominence as a trading partner; and the fact that the Constitution is silent on the environment. 1 The division of powers means that provinces have control over their natural resources, while the federal government regulates trade and offshore development. 2 This overlapping jurisdiction has historically led to inter-jurisdictional and interregional tension.The regional nature of natural resource endowments -and in particular energy endowments -has led to significant policy divergence between federal or provincial policies, and between policy actions of individual provinces.At times, federal policy has benefited one region at the expense of another.The regional endowments have also significantly affected economic development, which in turn influences policy direction.The United States' dominance among Canada's trading partners has resulted in considerable policy cooperation between the two nations.However, this strong economic relationship means there are many instances where Canada is reluctant to engage in policy action without the cooperation of the United States.Finally, the Constitution's silence on the environment means the environment is another area of shared 8 Environmental Policy Transformations and Canada at 150 jennifer winter
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".