What The Fact · Tech
Home Dashboard Transparency API ← Consumer site
Audit Trail · Article #2431952

Opponents of proposed gravel pit near Big Hill Springs park make last-ditch effort to appeal its approval

Source article ↗ · Calgary Herald · outlet lean: center-right · owner: Postmedia (corporate)
published 2026-10-28T21:16:44 · ingested 2026-10-28T17:44:54.333617
Bias Analysis · B.I.A.S.
CENTER-LEFT score: -0.40 vv3
The article presents a balanced view but leans towards the perspective of the opponents, highlighting their concerns and emotions.
Trigger phrases: tempers flaredopposing viewslast chance to halt
computed at 2026-10-28T17:44:54.333617
ML Bias Signal · DistilBERT Zero-Shot (v2)
RIGHT score: 0.316 confidence: 45% valhalla/distilbart-mnli-12-3
computed at 2026-10-28T18:23:25.246268-04:00
Ensemble (heuristic + ML v2)
CENTER RIGHT score: 0.316
Analysis Tier
Tier: quick_v1+full
Tier-1 at: 2026-10-28T18:26:45.156160
Tier-2 at: 2026-10-28T19:33:46.542396
AI analyzed: ✓ at 2026-10-28T18:25:59.648160
Geographic Extraction · L.O.C.A.L.
Country: CA
Province: AB
Scope: provincial
Fact-Check Claims · V.E.R.I.F.Y. (3)
true The provincial government granted Water Act approval for Aecon’s proposal for an 81-hectare gravel quarry 800 metres northwest of the park.
This information is based on a reported decision by the provincial government.
E.C.H.O. · 2026-10-28T19:33:46.542396
true Emotions over the potential fate of the tiny, 70-year-old provincial park have run high for years.
The article provides context and background to support this statement.
E.C.H.O. · 2026-10-28T19:33:46.542396
mixed Opponents argue that the gravel pit could harm the water quality and integrity of Big Hill Springs Provincial Park.
While opponents present these concerns, the article does not provide evidence or counterarguments from the quarrying company.
E.C.H.O. · 2026-10-28T19:33:46.542396
Cross-Outlet Cluster · I.N.K.
Opponents of proposed gravel pit near Big Hill Springs park make last-ditch effort to appeal its approval 1 article across outlets
clustered at 2026-10-28T17:44:54.344021
Governance — C.R.E.E.D.
A+
overall grade
100.0
By Category
Accountability {'events': 0, 'grade': 'A+', 'note': 'no events recorded', 'provisional': True, 'score': 100.0}
Environmental {'events': 0, 'grade': 'A+', 'note': 'no events recorded', 'provisional': True, 'score': 100.0}
Fairness {'events': 3, 'grade': 'A+', 'note': 'below minimum volume (3 events; minimum 100 for a non-provisional score)', 'provisional': True, 'score': 100.0}
Privacy {'events': 0, 'grade': 'A+', 'note': 'no events recorded', 'provisional': True, 'score': 100.0}
Safety {'events': 0, 'grade': 'A+', 'note': 'no events recorded', 'provisional': True, 'score': 100.0}
Transparency {'events': 0, 'grade': 'A+', 'note': 'no events recorded', 'provisional': True, 'score': 100.0}
Ethics audit by C.R.E.E.D. Institute · 3 events tracked
Raw Audit Trail (2 events)
  1. ingested
    payload 
    {
  "bias": {
    "band": "center",
    "heuristic_version": "v3",
    "rationale": "triggers: none \u2014 NO SIGNAL DETECTED (not a centrist finding)",
    "score": 0.0,
    "signal_detected": false
  },
  "source_id": 13757
}
  2. bias_v2_scored
    payload 
    {
  "confidence": 0.451,
  "ensemble_band": "center-right",
  "ensemble_score": 0.316,
  "label": "right",
  "model": "valhalla/distilbart-mnli-12-3",
  "score": 0.316
}
Every signal computed about this article, with timestamps. Source for the transparency promise behind our methodology.