Bibliographic record
Abstract
The citizen submission process administered by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation was one of the key concessions made to the environmental movement by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States in their effort to build political support for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993. The environmental groups that subsequently endorsed the new trade agreement believed a firm commitment had been made that this process would give ordinary citizens an effective tool for strengthening the enforcement of environmental laws. A review of the operation of the process reveals a number of problem areas, the most important of which have resulted from various actions taken by the three governments over the past several years. It is argued here that these actions threaten to undermine the credibility of the citizen submission process, even among environmentalists who supported NAFTA, and that the resulting disillusionment could strengthen opposition to future trade agreements.
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 | 0.083 | 0.180 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".