MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395059668 · doi:10.29173/alr2617

Climate Change and the Right to a Healthy Environment in the Canadian Constitution

2020· article· en· W4395059668 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Colin Feasby, David DeVlieger, Matthew Huys

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutionClimate changeLawPolitical scienceLaw and economicsSociologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article discusses the first efforts of non-governmental organizations and Indigenous communities in Canada to force governments to move more aggressively to mitigate climate change through constitutional litigation. The claimants argue the failure of the Canadian government to implement adequate climate change policies violates the constitutionally protected rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as the section 7 right to life and security of the person, and the section 15 right to equality. By comparing the developing Canadian actions to recent international jurisprudence in the Netherlands and the United States, the authors analyze the hurdles these claims will need to overcome to be successful at the Supreme Court of Canada — justiciability and whether the Charter even provides protection for environmental rights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207