MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413417420 · doi:10.29173/mlj1422

Aligning Manitoba's Sustainable Development Legislation with the 2030 Agenda

2025· article· en· W4413417420 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Evans-Boudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationSustainable developmentEnvironmental planningBusinessPolitical scienceGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Climate and Green Plan Act [CGPA] is Manitoba’s current sustainable development legislation; however, the CGPA does not effectively advance sustainable development as envisioned in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [2030 Agenda]. This paper provides an overview of what sustainable development is, a history of Manitoba’s attempts at implementing sustainable development, as well as the history of the 2030 Agenda. This background provides context for the recommendations made in this paper for advancing sustainable development in Manitoba. The central recommendation is that Manitoba should enact provincial legislation that aligns with the 2030 Agenda. The new statute should reference both sustainable development and the 2030 Agenda in its title; update the definition of sustainable development to include the “5Ps” (people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnership); and mandate a strategy that explicitly states how Manitoba will meet the 17 Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs]. Manitoba should also use a consistent definition of sustainable development in all relevant provincial legislation. These recommendations will better align Manitoba’s sustainable development legislation with Canada’s international commitments. This paper makes two contributions to existing literature. First, it provides an updated summary of Manitoba’s history of sustainable development legislation and policies. The most recent summary was published over ten years ago. Second, it provides examples of how the 2030 Agenda can be localized at the provincial level.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManitoba Law Journal→Same topicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments→French-language works237,207→