MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415586375 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v30i1.7468

Friends In Low (Carbon) Places: Supporting Clean Economies for Rural and Indigenous Canadians

2025· article· W4415586375 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lindsay Colley

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousWorryEnergy (signal processing)Rural areaGovernment (linguistics)Public policyWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of rural and Indigenous (R&I) communities in the low-carbon energy future is important to all of Canada. There are substantial risks and opportunities in Canada’s low-carbon energy transition. Both experts and young R&I Canadians hope for a positive low carbon future for their communities. But they worry their vision will not be realized on our current path. Our research and consultation with experts and young R&I leaders revealed several strategic priorities and policy recommendations that support a just transition to a prosperous low-carbon future for R&I communities.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.260 · 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.

Study designObservational
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 venueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization FoundationSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207