MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2319433906

A Gulf United: Canada-US Transboundary Marine Ecosystem-Based Governance in the Gulf of Maine

2010· article· en· W2319433906 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Lawrence P. Hildebrand, Aldo Chircop

Notice bibliographique

RevueOcean and coastal law journal · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Établissements canadiensDalhousie UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Organismes subventionnairesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésNova scotiaGeographyCorporate governanceTerritorial watersMarine conservationEnvironmental protectionMarine protected areaFisheryMarine ecosystemOceanographyEcosystemPolitical scienceArchaeologyInternational lawEcologyLawBusinessHabitat
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

In 1989, the Northeastern states of Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire in the United States and the neighboring Canadian Provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia embarked upon a new form of regional marine environmental cooperation when their governors and premiers adopted the Agreement on Conservation of the Marine Environment of the Gulf of Maine Between the Governments of the Bordering States and Provinces. By doing so, they gave birth to an informal regime for the Gulf of Maine (GoM) (i.e. the Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment), which to date has withstood the test of time. GoM regime participants undertake transboundary cooperation on the basis of shared ecosystem goals and objectives, as well as through the implementation of quinquennial Action Plans. In doing so, regime participants have effectively cooperated on the basis of a generally informal framework consisting of soft principles, understandings, and processes reflecting their mutual expectations in the regime’s issue areas. The GoM regime has been the subject of several scholarly reviews in recent years. Chircop et al. noted that the GoM regime: may be viewed as novel in at least three ways. First, the Agreement and Action Plan represent the first attempt to develop a broad regional marine environmental protection regime in North America . . . . Second, the Agreement is a provincial and state initiative, not a bilateral treaty between two sovereign nations. The Agreement, signed by the governors and premiers of the jurisdictions concerned, is neither a diplomatic instrument, nor a formal document. It is, essentially, a non-binding, multilateral, political agreement and therefore the impetus to cooperate is moral, rather than as a result of any legal obligation or commitment. This is in contrast to most regional marine environmental arrangements . . . which involve countries, such as the 13 Regional Seas Programmes facilitated by the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the regional agreements for the Baltic and North-East Atlantic. Third, the Agreement and Action Plan are not limited in coverage to marine waters but adopt an ecosystem approach covering coastal areas and watersheds in the region. The Agreement explicitly provides for consideration of “the shoreline, seabed, waters and associated natural resources of the GoM region, including Georges Bank and the Bay of Fundy.” The GoM regime has persisted for two decades and has grown to address increasingly more issues. It has evolved to respond to a changing biophysical and socio-economic operating environment in a different manner from other regional environmental regimes, and continues to do so with the release of its fourth and latest Action Plan for the period 2007-2012. Against this backdrop, this Article is an assessment of the GoM regime, and further builds on the literature on the subject. This assessment is considered in the context of the GoM’s geography, hydrology, ecosystem, resources, and legal considerations, and the ecosystem challenges faced by the region. The origins and historical evolution of the regime are then set out, followed by a discussion of the main elements of the GoM regime. This assessment is an attempt at explaining the persistence of the GoM regime by offering insights into key factors that have contributed to its endurance, while at the same time raising important questions for future continuity and further growth.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,915
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,657

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,235
Écart entre enseignants0,227 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOcean and coastal law journalMême sujetArctic and Russian Policy StudiesTravaux en français237 207