NAFTA and the border environmental cooperation commission: Assessing activism in the environmental infrastructure project certification process (1996–2004)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The signing of the NAFTA agreement in 1994 brought environmental problems found on the United States/Mexico border into light. The new institutions created by NAFTA, specifically the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), were designed to encourage public participation in the environmental infrastructure certification process. Using the insights of historical institutionalism combined with contributions from organizational decision making in the context of high probability technologies, we assess three key variables: environmental infrastructure types, attributes of the community, and institutional rules. To assess the impact of these variables on the BECC certification process, content analysis was conducted on infrastructure projects in Texas and the bordering Mexican states from 1995 to 2004. The paper finds that water and wastewater treatment projects prevailed on both sides of the border with Mexico receiving a greater funding level, largely because of the BECC's top down rule‐making and its technical mission. A secondary finding is that transnational environmental groups have had little impact on BECC policies.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".