The Proposed New Federal Impact Assessment Act (IAA) Under Bill C-69: Assessment & Reform Proposals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This working paper starts with an overview of the proposed Canadian Impact Assessment Act (CIAA), introduced in Parliament in February 2018 as part of Bill C-69. The Bill was introduced following a multi-year consultation effort by the federal government on how to improve the federal assessment and decision-making process in Canada to regain public trust in the process and federal project decisions. Following a general overview of the key changes, the paper offers a detailed assessment of three key elements of the proposed reforms, the Review Panel process, public participation, follow-up, and the role of strategic and regional assessments under the proposed CIAA. Each detailed assessment includes a summary of what Bill C-69 proposes, where it falls short, and how the shortcomings could be addressed through amendments to Bill C-69.
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 | 0.033 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".