MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W826737116 · doi:10.69554/dasj2480

Environmental management planning: A Canadian perspective

2008· article· en· W826737116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alec W.M. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of airport management · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Environmental planningBusinessEnvironmental resource managementGeographyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aviation industry has faced significant economic and environmental challenges over the past 20 years. Increased public concern regarding protection of the environment from the impacts of transportation has prompted governments to seek voluntary and regulatory measures to manage the various modes of transportation. Canada, as a global partner, has responded to the challenges of airport environmental management with a balanced approach between voluntary and regulatory measures. Through the development of environmental management plans and procedures, airports and carriers have been able to reduce negative impacts on air, water and soil and respond to challenges concerning aircraft de-icing fluids, greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other air emissions. This paper provides an overview of environmental issues facing the Canadian Government and aviation industry, management procedures utilised to manage these issues, and environmental management challenges of the future. It will focus on examples of a water quality issue through the management of de-icing fluids. It will also provide an overview of the management of GHGs and air pollutants through a voluntary agreement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of airport managementSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207