MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395059327 · doi:10.29173/alr2699

The Legal Framework for Carbon Dioxide Removal in Canada

2022· article· en· W4395059327 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Neil Craik, Anna‐Maria Hubert, Chelsea Daku

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International AffairsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsCarbon dioxideBusinessLaw and economicsSociologyChemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent assessments of progress on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions suggest that efforts to reduce emissions are well below what is necessary to meet current global targets of 2 degrees Celsius, let alone 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models include significant amounts of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) from the atmosphere as necessary to meet the 2 degrees Celsius target. The models assume the availability of CDR technologies to contribute to climate goals, but significant uncertainties remain regarding the efficacy, costs, scalability, environmental impacts, and broader public acceptability of these technologies. In Canada, CDR technologies are a crucial element of Canada’s long-term climate strategy towards achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Still, little to no national policy attention has been paid to researching, assessing, and implementing CDR measures, including the necessary legal framework in which these technologies would operate. This article provides an overview of Canada’s existing legal framework that will apply to various CDR methods as they are developed. It examines the legal framework as it may apply to CDR measures collectively (particularly in consideration of how these technologies will be treated in Canada’s broader climate framework), and individually. It aims to take stock of existing federal and provincial rules and assess the potential gaps that will need to begin to be addressed as Canada develops CDR capacities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.906

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0190.012
Scholarly communication0.0170.003
Open science0.0060.003
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207