MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417088674 · doi:10.1093/cmlj/kmaf023

Sustainable investment management in Canada

2025· article· en· W4417088674 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCapital Markets Law Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersUniversity College London
KeywordsSustainabilityAsset (computer security)Investment (military)DiscretionGovernment (linguistics)Asset managementAction (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Canadian law likely requires asset managers with discretion over client funds to consider the sustainability impacts of their investment decisions, but there is little to no case law elaborating on this obligation—perhaps due to procedural barriers to litigation in this field. Managers of publicly traded collective investment schemes must disclose material information on how sustainability factors influence their investment decisions, but Canada’s provincial and territorial securities regulators have stopped short of standardizing these disclosures. Nonetheless, asset managers can draw on a wealth of commentary and soft law to harmonize their disclosure practices and adapt their investing approaches to better reflect the financial and other challenges posed by climate change and other threats to environmental sustainability. The likelihood that Canada’s federal government will make greater use of its own powers to drive financial sector action on sustainability gives asset managers reason to be proactive in this vein.

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.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.227 · 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