The Applicability of Section 7 of the Charter to Oil and Gas Development in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Albertans think about human rights in the context of oil and gas development, many think of Africa, and for good reason. Indeed, the tragic events that have unfolded in Sudan in recent years may come to mind. Few, however, will turn their minds to the possibility of human rights violations occurring in their own province. And yet, in at least three court applications over the past year or so, landowners have raised the spectre of the applicability of human rights law in the context of oil and gas development in Al- berta. Specifically, the possibility of the applica- tion of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is at issue.1 Arguments have been based on both aspects of section 7 — the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accor- dance with the principles of fundamental justice (or procedural fairness), including rights to a fair hearing, to reasonable notice, and to reasons for a decision. Although no definite ruling has yet emerged, in none of these cases was it suggested that section 7 is inapplicable in the context of the actual and potential environmental and health impacts of oil and gas development (or other industrial development for that matter). Where there might have been doubt about this issue be- fore, there does not appear to be any now.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".