Citizen Committee Terms of Reference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To provide an opportunity for citizens of the Regional District of Nanaimo to contribute their knowledge and opinions about sustainability as it relates to the region. Responsibilities 1. Provide advice regarding public events (i.e. Who should be invited to attend? What speakers should be invited to speak at the event? How should the event be formatted? How should participant feedback about sustainability be obtained at the event? Where should the event be conducted? How should the event be publicized?). 2. Provide comments about the existing indicator set for use in refining the indicator set. 3. Review and provide comments about draft reports about: � the state of sustainability in the region; � how the sustainability of the region can be improved. 4. Provide advice regarding the development and implementation of the Regional Sustainability Awards Program. 5. Make recommendations regarding the awarding of Regional Sustainability Awards. 6. Attend public events. 7. Attend committee meetings. A maximum of twelve meetings may be conducted each year, concentrated around the development of key project deliverables. Membership Composition 1. The Committee shall include a maximum of 11 volunteer members. 2. The Committee membership shall include an equal number of members with experience and knowledge in each of the three ‘legs ’ of sustainability (the economy, the environment, and society). In order to achieve this, the 11 committee members shall be comprised as follows a) One electoral area director; b) One member municipality director; c) Three residents with experience, knowledge and interest in the environmental component of sustainability that are either employed in an organization or are members of an organization concerned with environmental protection; d) Three residents with experience, knowledge and interest in the economic component of sustainability, allocated as follows:
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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.500 | 0.548 |
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".