Exploring Collaborative Environmental Governance: Perspectives on Bridging and Actor Agency
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 This article explores the prospect and practice of alternative and more collaborative approaches to environmental governance, focusing on recent North American experience and with particular attention to: (i) characteristic barriers to effective and collaborative environmental governance; (ii) approaches to collaboration and bridging between actors and sectors; and (iii) the potential role of actor agency. The focus of inquiry is primarily on recent North American experience. The key literature on environmental governance is discussed, and interviews conducted with environmental practitioners, academics, government officials and community leaders to explore and analyse their experiences with environmental governance are analysed. Collectively, these experiences suggest that there is a need for more skilful bridging of actors and initiatives, and a greater role for governments in facilitating collaborative approaches. The interviews also point to a number of challenges that must be overcome before the full potential of collaborative environmental governance can be realized. Although some researchers advocate the need for unified and overarching approaches to environmental governance, there is considerable evidence indicating that efforts are better directed towards building networks and collaboration among a wide diversity of actors, philosophies and approaches.
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 | 0.001 | 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