Mediating the ‘National’ and the ‘Local’ in the Environmental Policy Process: A Case Study of the CPRE
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
As environmental concerns press upon public policy so state agencies tend to enter into governmental ‘partnerships’ with environmental groups. On the one hand, these ‘partnerships’ allow the state to call upon forms of expertise held by the groups and to gain broad legitimacy for state policies. On the other hand, the development of policy partnerships enables environmental groups to influence policy formulation processes directly. However, it also means that such groups must ‘sell’ the agreed policy line to local members. Using the case study of the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), we investigate how environmental groups manage the relationship between national policymaking and local support. Through the investigation of three CPRE county branches we reveal an uneven geography of environmental governance and show how this geography affects the diffusion of environmental policy objectives. We argue that the implementation of environmental policies must be set within local economic, political, and social conditions as these conditions ensure considerable variation in modes of environmental governance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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