MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970170381 · doi:10.1108/eum0000000005541

Advocacy by environmental nonprofit organisations ‐ An optimal strategy for addressing environmental problems?

2001· article· en· W1970170381 on OpenAlex
Femida Handy

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Economics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveEnvironmental qualityEnvironmental policyBusinessQuality (philosophy)Environmental management systemCrowding outEconomicsPublic economicsPublic relationsEnvironmental economicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several policy alternatives exist to protect environmental quality. Environmental nonprofits advocating for better environmental quality must often choose what policies to advocate and support. This article argues that environmental nonprofits will do best by designing strategies of advocacy contingent on the net costs to the stakeholders and paying attention to the crowding‐out effects of monetary incentives. It investigates the advocacy policies of 50 environmental organizations in Canada. The findings of this survey show that although reduction of net costs is espoused, market‐based policies are not generally advocated, while a greater emphasis is put on regulatory approaches combined with moral suasion through the dissemination of information and educational programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.267 · 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