MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1545784479 · doi:10.60082/2817-5069.1196

Confronting Chronic Pollution: A Socio-Legal Analysis of Risk and Precaution

2008· article· en· W1545784479 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dayna Nadine Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueOsgoode Hall law journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental Justice and Health Disparities
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)PollutionResistance (ecology)Environmental planningMantraEnvironmental justiceWork (physics)Economic JusticePolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsLawGeographyEngineeringEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The central aim of this article is to demonstrate a socio-legal approach to risk and precaution using the example of chronic pollution. Drawing on ongoing empirical work with the Aamjiwnaang First Nation, which is tucked into Sarnia's "Chemical Valley," a secondary aim is to influence and shape how we understand the problem and confront the risks of chronic pollution. This article forwards the argument that the prevailing regulatory approach is incapable of capturing the essence of contemporary pollution harms, because those harms are increasingly linked to continuous, routine, low-dose exposures to contaminants that are within legally sanctioned limits. Community residents and advocates struggling against chronic pollution are increasingly identifying with the environmental justice movement and adopting its strategies of resistance, including its mantra of "precaution." These strategies of resistance have the potential to dramatically expose the impotence of the prevailing regulatory approach to chronic pollution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.081
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0100.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsgoode Hall law journalSame topicEnvironmental Justice and Health DisparitiesFrench-language works237,207