Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Degree of coerciveness is often used to categorize policy instruments. This article analyses the relative coerciveness associated with the instruments used by municipal, provincial and federal governments in Canada to address three major successive pollution threats ‐ sewage, industrial toxic waste, and greenhouse‐gas emissions ‐ that have appeared on the policy agenda over the course of the past century. During that time, there has been an overall trend of declining coerciveness, with one exception. In the case of toxic waste, established regulatory regimes were made more coercive some years after they were first put in place. These findings can best be explained by theories of instrument choice that look to interactions among relevant state and societal actors in the policy network. It is suggested that one aspect of that process in particular ‐ the balance of power between regulator and “regulatee” ‐is of importance in explaining relative coerciveness. We must first understand the ability of the regulator to coerce before we can explain the selection of more or less coercive instruments. Sommaire: Le degré de coercition est un attribut souvent utilisé pour classer les politiques publiques. L'auteur de cet article analyse la coercition associée aux instruments politiques utilisés par les gouvemements fédéral, municipaux et provinciaux au Canada au cours du siècle demier. Les gouvernements en question tentent de s'attaquer à trois importantes menaces successives de pollution qui ont figuré au programme d'élaboration des politiques, à savoir les égouts, les déchets toxiques industriels et les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Pendant cette période, les politiques coercitives connaissaient un déclin, exception faite des déchets toxiques où des règlements établis sont devenus plus coercitifs quelques années après leur mise en place. Les théories du choix des instruments politiques qui étudient les interactions entre les acteurs gouvernementaux et sociaux en matiére d'élaboration des politiques expliquent mieux les résultats relevés. On pense qu'un aspect particulier de ce processus, à savoir l'équilibre du pouvoir entre l'autorité de réglementation et les réglementés, est important pour expliquer la coercition relative. Nous devons dans un premier temps comprendre la cnpacité de l'autorité de réglementation à contraindre avant de pouvoir expliquer le choix d'instruments plus ou moins coercitifs.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".