MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020717371

Mapping Human Rights-Based Climate Litigation in Canada

2022· article· en· W7020717371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeYLS (Yale Law School) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsClimate changeLegislationCommissionClimate justiceAccountabilitySupreme courtIndigenousState (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In line with global trends, there has been an increase in human rights-based climate litigation brought in Canadian courts in recent years. A federal state comprised of ten provinces, three territories, and diverse Indigenous peoples (First Nations, Inuit, or Métis), Canada provides a rich and multifaceted case study. In our article, published in a special issue of the Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, we consider three different dimensions of Canadian climate litigation: substantive human rights arguments; procedural environmental human rights claims; and the potential of transnational corporate accountability human rights-based claims.\nIt is no surprise that the experience of climate change across the Canada is not uniform, given its geographic scope and diversity. For example, the Inuit have been long aware that climate change poses a serious threat to human rights as evident from the petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2005. More recently, the wildfires and extreme heatwave in Western Canada and concern over flooding and sea-level rise among coastal communities has drawn attention to the urgency of adaptation. However, the economy remains heavily tied to the fossil fuel industry particularly in Alberta and in Newfoundland & Labrador, and Canadians have among the highest per capita CO2 emissions in the world. Canada has repeatedly failed to meet its own inadequate climate mitigation targets, yet a 2007 legal challenge to this failure was held to be non-justiciable. More recent legal challenges to federal carbon pricing legislation came from provinces who viewed it as federal overreach, however the majority of the Supreme Court of Canada held in favour for the federal government in 2021, noting in passing that climate change is a serious threat to Indigenous peoples, including their ability to maintain traditional ways of life.\nAgainst this background, our article considers emerging trends in human rights-based claims.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.333
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.030
Science and technology studies0.0330.012
Scholarly communication0.0190.005
Open science0.0050.009
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeYLS (Yale Law School)Same topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207