All Party Green Agenda Newfoundland & Labrador 2011 Provincial Election
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Newfoundland and Labrador possesses a wealth of natural and environmental resources. This includes important wildlife habitat, forest, freshwater and marine ecosystems. With such wealth comes a duty to protect and enhance the natural environment. The 2011 provincial election is a watershed election for the province. After several years of prosperity which has seen significant revenues from non-renewable offshore resources invested to modernize public infrastructure such as hospitals, roads and schools among other things, the opportunity exists for the next government to chart an environmentally friendly and sustainable future for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. This bold innovative environmental future is to focus on: • embracing alternative energy resources; • protecting our peatlands resources; • investing in leading edge waste management practices; • reducing the environmental impacts of the oil industry; • moving to less carbon intensive practices; • repositioning the forestry sector to recognize its diversity and to ensure its environmental sustainability; and, • working to create a food production system that is less dependent on imports. It is to these issues that this environmental brief seeks commitment from all political parties in the 2011 provincial election.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.214 | 0.065 |
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".