{"id":"W2056547729","doi":"10.3152/147154603781766455","title":"A square peg in a round hole: fitting impact assessment under the Antarctic Environmental Protocol to Antarctic tourism","year":2003,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal","topic":"Polar Research and Ecology","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":46,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"","funders":"","keywords":"Antarctic treaty; Tourism; Treaty; Environmental impact assessment; Montreal Protocol; Argument (complex analysis); Protocol (science); Environmental resource management; Political science; Environmental protection; Environmental science; Geography; Law; Chemistry; Meteorology","routes":{"ca_aff":false,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":true},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["metaepi_narrow","insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.00186071,0.0004619304,0.0004118183,0.000183866,0.0004465362,0.0003400745,0.0003784197,0.0001417229,0.002755536],"category_scores_gemma":[0.00009581873,0.0003040794,0.0001657564,0.0005583446,0.0003181936,0.0006476351,0.0003783733,0.0007822873,0.00007684225],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.001514202,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.0004152659,"about_ca_topic_candidate":false,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.003737119,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.0008420906,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9959966,0.0007778462,0.0004526025,0.0006721665,0.0007583176,0.001342498],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9984451,0.0005359296,0.0001501978,0.0004639153,0.000006460794,0.0003984256],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0001727188,0.0006565295,0.9876021,0.00002974047,0.00009322355,0.00007285306,0.001217287,0.0007082794,0.00409013,0.00007906459,0.002081286,0.003196806],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001960502,0.002027662,0.9862499,0.0000302543,0.00002595776,0.000133293,0.002071671,0.001959824,0.00009776012,0.0002467606,0.004754033,0.000442389],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9712975,0.00001747736,0.0003948272,0.0006735125,0.00008508324,0.02406931,0.0000277581,0.00003552731,0.00339899],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9854244,0.00001110381,0.001198226,0.0003043093,0.00007084099,0.01282317,0.00002011346,0.00004408299,0.0001037393],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.01412689,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9999411,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.02593486115253512,"score_gpt":0.4231623366201872,"score_spread":0.397227475467652,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}