The environmental legal narrative of renewable energy sources: legal regulation in the Russian Federation and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is analyses normative-legal regulation and public policy system of the renewable energy sources (RES) in the Russian Federation and Canada. The authors analyzed the normative-legal base of RES formation, generation and effect on the development of domestic and foreign policy of the states. An attempt is made to describe and compare environmental and legal approaches to the application and realization of RES and their impact on the development of the Russian Federation and Canada. The article analyzes “green” energy on the basis of state approaches and natural- geographical conditions of the territory of the states at its formation. In the Russian Federation the main RES sectors are solar energy, wind energy, hydropower, energy obtained from biomass and waste processing, biogas, and landfill gas. In Canada, the main clean energy sectors are more province-specific and additionally include geothermal energy, green hydrogen and territorial tidal phenomena. The RES analysis will help to identify the specifics and opportunities for application and formation of new mechanisms of state policy and improvement of the regulatory framework in the Russian Federation. The main difference between the Canadian and Russian approach to legislative regulation is the two-tier regulation: the general directions of sustainable development and the four-year strategy are fixed at the federal level, while the main legislative regulation is carried out at the provincial level, depending on regional priorities in the development of certain RES types. The experience of Canada’s “distributed” regulatory framework can be used to improve Russian legislation, as it will help to take into account regional priorities in the development of certain RES types and implement short-term renewable energy projects.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".