COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SEA LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE IN CHINA (MAINLAND), CANADA AND THE UK (ENGLAND)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the Law of the People's Republic of China on Environmental Impact Assessment (the EIA Law) came into effect in China (mainland) in September 2003, and notably in 2006, the Chinese government released a series of laws and regulations to strengthen strategic environmental assessment (SEA) application in China. SEA is acknowledged by the Chinese central government as a tool to help achieve sustainable development, and it is employed as an instrument to emphasise environmental protection and "scientific outlook of development" during the course of the current rapid industrial and urban development, to build a "harmonious society", and ultimately to achieve sustainable development. This paper compares the Chinese (mainland) SEA system, its legal requirements, institutional structure and procedural framework with the UK and the Canadian systems, to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of the institutional and governance arrangements of the Chinese SEA system. The conclusions point to some possible explanations for less than optimum implementation of SEA in China, and suggestions for ways to improve the Chinese SEA system in the future.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".