The Security and Prosperity Agreement as an “Indicator Species” for the Emerging North American Environmental Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2005 trilateral Security and Prosperity Agreement (SPP), with its emphasis on “quality of life” and “joint stewardship of the environment,” is a useful indicator of the state of environmental policy cooperation in North America. The SPP's environmental approach isad hoc, disjointed and unambitious, consisting mainly of repackaged, “end‐of‐pipe” initiatives already being undertaken by various levels of government. Thus, the SPP has not changed the landscape for national policy makers in any significant way, that is, there is little evidence of regulatory harmonization as a result of SPP initiatives. Instead, the impact of the SPP may be more subtle; it helps to further institutionalize, implicitly and explicitly, a particular Prosperity Agenda, one which has been dominant in North America and views environmental problems as separate from economic dynamics. In this way, the SPP may act as a brake on domestic policy ambitions and does little to encourage a more thoroughgoing discussion of environment–economy linkages.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".