Governance Instruments That Protect Children's Environmental Health: Is Enough Being Done?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe our efforts to find and assess governance instruments: laws, regulations, guidelines, addressing specifically the issue of children's environmental health in OECD countries in the European Union (EU) and in the United States of America (US). The ultimate purpose is to inform policy that will further Canada's commitment to children's environmental health. Among governance instruments found, most EU country governance instruments duplicated EU Directives; American governance instruments were found at both the federal and state level. With a few clear exceptions, the effects of environmental agents on the child have not been considered specifically in those OECD governance instruments that address environmental health concerns. We found multiple governance instruments with a clear children's environmental health focus, but little emphasis on the uniqueness of children. We also found laws not specifically addressing children in the text, but which clearly involved concern for child health. Some legislation was impeded because of scientific uncertainty, which, on occasion, appeared to be industry-driven. The precautionary principle appeared to be applied most frequently in European legislation. We conclude that children's environmental health is not well-addressed for the majority of laws relating to the 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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".