Wild Spaces or Polluted Places: Contentious Policies, Consensus Institutions, and Environmental Performance in Industrialized Democracies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article contributes to the literature on environmental governance in industrialized democracies by showing that effectively conserving biodiversity requires different institutional strategies than reducing air emissions. Institutional effectiveness diminishes as the politically contentiousness of the issue increases, moving from biodiversity to air pollution, and then climate change. Drawing on Lijphart's theory of consensus democracy and theories of functional and actorcentered federalism, we use the 2010 Environmental Performance Index and panel analysis on twenty-one OECD countries to show that consensus-based party systems improve performance. We find that centralization generates greater improvements with respect to air pollution than biodiversity, but that decentralized strategies can improve biodiversity when implemented alongside corporatist bargaining structures.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it