Limitations of European Union policy and law for regulating use of lead shot and sinkers: comparisons with North American regulation
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
Abstract Extensive shooting and angling causes, indirectly, fatal lead poisoning of birds. European Union policy on this major source of pollution is inconsistent with its laws regulating other forms of lead in the environment. Only three countries have banned the use of lead shot completely in the European Union, despite availability of substitutes and evidence that their use is a major contributor to bird conservation. The European Commission uses the criterion of amount of lead deposited and corroded, and the concentration of lead in water and soil, as the basis of their decisions. The USA and Canada used the prevalence of lead poisoning among birds as the basis of policy and law allowing them to reduce lead use at the continental level. The EU and North American policies and law on lead reduction are compared in this study, on the basis of which recommendations are developed indicating how the EU could revise its approach and resolve this environmental problem. Reluctance to act on lead reduction by the European Parliament and its member states reflects the current vested interests of the sporting communities. Companies in eight European countries already produce non‐toxic materials for hunting and shooting, and are not the limiting factor in this issue. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it