LA COOPERACIÓN AMBIENTAL ENTRE MÉXICO Y CANADÁ: ENTRE EL MITO Y LA REALIDAD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El articulo plantea que las politicas ambientales de Canada y Mexicotienen trayectorias diferentes, pero ambas se enfrentan a una limitacionmayor en materia de cooperacion ambiental que emana del Tratadode Libre Comercio. En el caso canadiense, la relacion provincial yestatal genera ciertas limitaciones en la instrumentacion de algunos programas,mientras que en el caso mexicano la excesiva normatividad,poca rigidez y corrupcion son factores que limitan la puesta en marchade estos programas. Sin embargo, en ambos paises hay una voluntadpolitica de cooperacion ambiental que desafortunadamente se ve rebasadapor el por el Tratado de Libre Comercio de America del Norte (TLCAN),que a pesar de contar con un capitulo en materia ambiental, es antetodo, un acuerdo comercial. En este articulo se plantea que cualquierforma de cooperacion ambiental se vera afectada por el Capitulo 11 delTLCAN, que menciona que cualquier iniciativa en materia de controlambiental debe pasar por una estricta revision para no afectar los derechosde las empresas establecidas en el territorio de cualquiera de lostres paises que conforman el tratado, lo que representa un dique paracualquier iniciativa conjunta en materia ambiental.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".