Dégradation d’un mécanisme innovateur : le Canada et l’Accord Nord-Américain de Coopération dans le Domaine de l’Environnement (ANACDE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le libre-échange, auquel participe le Canada avec plusieurs États, apporte son lot de questions, notamment par rapport aux normes environnementales internes des États. Afin d’apaiser les craintes des groupes environnementalistes, les États-Unis, le Canada et le Mexique, en adoptant l’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain, ont négocié un accord parallèle sans précédent, l’Accord Nord-Américain de Coopération dans le Domaine de l’Environnement (ANACDE). Cet accord prévoit des mécanismes avant-gardistes de coopération et de participation du public, qui, à l’époque de l’adoption de l’ANACDE, ont été salués par les environnementalistes. Pourtant, vingt ans plus tard, l’accord semble pris en otage par son organe dirigeant, et est devenu l’objet de nombreuses critiques. Cette communication fait le point sur les hauts et les bas d’un accord unique de coopération environnementale.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".