Advocacy Coalitions and Canadian Energy Policy Decision: Navigating Four Pipeline Projects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conflicting goals of sustaining the Canadian economy through energy and prioritizing climate action lead to diverse interest groups with varying views on policies advocating their positions to government. Despite energy's economic importance, climate change remains central for the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau. The management of pipeline proposals such as Transmountain, Northern Gateway, Energy East, Keystone Xl under this government showcased its balancing act between economic interests and environmental commitments. Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, this paper examines how governments and regulatory authorities modify the process for accepting or rejecting pipeline proposals, the evolution of interest groups in shaping their proposals, and the influence of this process on shaping their belief systems. The intersection involving the government, First Nations, environmentalists, provincial decisions, courts, media scrutiny, and the regulatory board's decision-making process explores the complex and contentious nature of approving major energy infrastructure projects, such as the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.062 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".