MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6921936181 · doi:10.11575/prism/35943

Investigating The Environmental, Regulatory, And Socio-economic Challenges Associated With Sara And Cosewic Listed Species On Canadian Pipeline Projects

2015· other· en· W6921936181 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2015
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101ProteogenomicsHyporeflexiaArticular cartilage damageDiafiltration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public concerns over climate change and its associated impacts have significantly increased scrutiny of the Canadian pipeline industry. Pipeline projects proposed in environmentally sensitive areas, such as Enbridge’s Northern Gateway Pipeline and TransCanada’s recently filed Energy East Pipeline, have created concerns for local species and their habitats. These concerns have led to increased regulatory demand, having a significant impact on the cost, schedule, and public perception of proposed pipeline projects in Canada. Despite conducting extensive environmental and socioeconomic impact assessments, and implementing subsequent mitigation measures specifically tailored to species at risk, oil and gas transportation companies continue to face challenges in obtaining regulatory approvals and securing favourable public opinion for proposed pipeline projects. This project will investigate the impacts of species at risk listed under the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada’s (COSEWIC) on the (environmental, regulatory, and socio-economic) development of pipeline projects in Canada.

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)0.010
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.157 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)→French-language works237,207→