Response to Corner Brook Pulp & Paper Tire Derived Fuel (TDF) Co-Firing Trial Project Proponent: Corner Brook Pulp & Paper Ltd. (Reg. 1539)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While acknowledging potential economic benefits for Corner Brook Pulp and Paper (CBPP) in using tire-derived fuel (TDF), we remain unconvinced of the net public and environmental health benefits of its use and are concerned with the methodology of the proposed test. We hope that this overview of our concerns can help the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) make an informed decision regarding the testing of TDF at CBPP. Guiding our submission is the precautionary principle, which has been adopted by all relevant parties, including the Government of Canada, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and CBPP. As such and in light of the issues below, it is our position that additional research is required before moving to a test trial. This can be achieved either by conducting a full Environmental Impact Statement, including component studies and additional public hearings, or by rejecting the undertaking outright.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.006 |
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".