At Risk or in Jeopardy? Canadian Common Law Species at Risk Jurisprudence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the world’s largest common law country, and the one with the most territory in the critically imperiled Arctic and subarctic regions, Canada is an excellent case study on how common law jurisprudence upholds or undermines the purpose of legislation protecting species at risk. In Canadian legal precedents, there is no leading case on species at risk related matters. This is partially a reflection of the multi-disciplinary nature of environmental legal issues. Depending on the specific facts of each case, a contravention of species at risk laws could be litigated as a criminal, civil, or even an administrative hearing. Because laws exist within and because of social and cultural systems, understanding the socio-cultural reasons why laws were enacted informs how those legal issues are perceived in courts. In this article, we provide a synthesis of the current state of common law species at risk legislation in Canada. We begin by explaining the history and social context of conservation and species at risk legislation development. We then undertake a case law review and analysis for all species at risk related issues, and present the trends in ratios and decisions for three categories of litigation: criminal, administrative, and civil. The results show that while criminal cases tend to uphold species at risk interests, decisions from administrative and civil litigation are less consistent.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".