{"id":"W2995868427","doi":"10.1016/j.eiar.2019.106355","title":"Testing an ex-ante framework for the evaluation of impact assessment laws: Lessons from Canada and Brazil","year":2019,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Environmental Impact Assessment Review","topic":"Environmental and Social Impact Assessments","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":35,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":false,"ca_institutions":"University of Waterloo","funders":"Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico","keywords":"Lawmaking; Legislature; Ex-ante; Scope (computer science); Parliament; Political science; Process (computing); Impact assessment; Public administration; Law; Environmental planning; Public economics; Law and economics; Economics; Computer science; Politics; Geography","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":true,"ca_venue":false,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.09538002,0.0009630646,0.001460962,0.003739099,0.006154788,0.01092438,0.005386123,0.003508763,0.003853789],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1794954,0.0006691939,0.001219389,0.004963594,0.008742929,0.008061725,0.004178278,0.006405366,0.000287321],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.07997642,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.2337305,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.8859969,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9384941,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9518953,0.02224273,0.002031846,0.002279282,0.01760566,0.003945125],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.803611,0.1030711,0.00538049,0.008314985,0.0774415,0.002181026],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"theoretical_or_conceptual","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0002354981,0.0002048834,0.0185818,0.001841426,0.0005114842,0.0005350852,0.004233141,0.01045929,0.001048996,0.8371511,0.02597991,0.09921742],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.001246747,0.0009357982,0.09309062,0.01179315,0.004709408,0.0004957977,0.02272938,0.05354406,0.007280474,0.440055,0.363674,0.0004456379],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":null,"genre_codex":"other","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.1654592,0.03581322,0.04838162,0.1994528,0.001198317,0.002166262,0.003295059,0.0003100768,0.5439234],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.942097,0.008897127,0.03056726,0.008621158,0.0001866058,0.0005395937,0.0005336117,0.00008546607,0.008472135],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":null,"teacher_disagreement_score":0.9200236,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.5802722,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.05136555384875682,"score_gpt":0.4261873528508737,"score_spread":0.3748217990021169,"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."}}