MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7072144571

THE USE OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL\nPOLICY MAKING AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH:\nA CASE STUDY OF BISMUTH SHOTSHELLS

2006· dissertation· en· W7072144571 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2006
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGovernment (linguistics)Process (computing)Work (physics)Context (archaeology)Order (exchange)Filter (signal processing)
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Scientific information is required to make environmental policy that will enhance and protect the health of ecosystems. The issues placed on the policy agenda come from the interactions amongst stakeholders, decision makers and other influential actors. These actors include government, civil society, private sector, and planning regimes. Ideally, scientific research then provides members of the policy community with assessed options upon which final decisions are eventually made. <br /><br /> This process is more complex than most in the realm of environmental policy because the goal of sustainability, commonly advocated by government, should serve to guide choices regarding policy alternatives. Sustainability, in practice, requires simultaneous attention to factors such as the needs of present and future generations; consideration for vastly differing social, environmental, and economic perspectives; and development of effective strategies to deal with the interconnectedness and complexity of the world. Management of these factors demands an ability to collect and process massive amounts of information at different temporal and spatial scales. The complexity of such situations means that there are instances when scientific information is not available and decisions need to be made quickly. <br /><br /> Using a case study approach, this thesis investigates the Canadian Wildlife Service?s attempts to achieve its mandate of conserving migratory birds while approving bismuth as an alternative to lead that was shown to cause poisoning of birds. This case study serves as an example of the tension between limited or ambiguous scientific information and urgent decisions. The chosen policy alternative to the use of lead shot was the approval of bismuth shot as a non-toxic substitute in 1997 and banning the use of lead shot nationwide in 1999. This decision to approve bismuth shot was based upon a few studies that were interpreted in a way that made it appear benign when compared to lead. This thesis examines the implications of this decision by conducting a comprehensive literature review of bismuth?s interactions with soil, vegetation, and animals, with some medical information on humans to put findings into an anthropocentric context. Also, analysis has been carried out on the results of a four-year study on bismuth in a wetland site near Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Finally, a ?post-normal perspective? exploration of the Canadian Wildlife Service revealed that decisions could be harmful to both human and environmental health if the values and knowledge of stakeholders are not taken into account and if uncertainties are overlooked. <br /><br /> Key findings generated by the literature review were potential chronic impacts to the neurological and reproductive health of animals exposed to bismuth shot. In turn, bismuth-contaminated meat may be a source of bismuth for humans and therefore guidelines for consumption should be investigated. Also, soil and vegetation have also been shown to accumulate bismuth, but it is unknown if it amounts to toxic levels. The wetland study helped to address the literature gap of bismuth?s fate in the environment. The mean concentration of bismuth in the soil after four years was 6. 40 µg/g, which was significantly higher than the control soil mean of 0. 42 µg/g. Ultimately, in terms of environmental policy, a ?post-normal perspective? offers three main tools for decision makers faced with urgent issues and uncertain facts. Namely, extended peer communities, acknowledgement and demonstration of uncertainty, and making values explicit.

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 candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,405
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

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 technologies0,0020,002
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 Opus0,044
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,249 · 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.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
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
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Même sujetEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural StudiesTravaux en français237 207