Law Reform through Deep Ecology: A Critical Review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The single most important piece of legislation in Canadian environmental law, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) proposed its set of amendments under Bill S-5, Strengthening Environmental Protection for a Healthier Canada Act. This project is a qualitative study, using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to review the amendments in Bill S-5 against the philosophy of deep ecology which argues that nature has inherent worth. Overall, Bill S-5 does not display evidence of deep ecology principles. I argue that if the Act is amended to include stricter principles inspired by deep ecology, it can enhance sustainable development. By examining the Bill’s language and the law’s sociocultural contexts, CDA provides insights into the potential implications and effects if the Act indeed displayed a case for biocentric equality. Deep ecology at times underplays the capacity of the role of humans, therefore Canadian Indigenous knowledge systems will be discussed to address this gap.
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 | 0.032 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".