MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078997102 · doi:10.1177/0020702014546338

Multilateral solutions to bilateral problems: The 1972 Stockholm conference and Canadian foreign environmental policy

2015· article· en· W2078997102 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael W. Manulak

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International Affairs
FundersU.S. Department of State
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Political scienceArcticEnvironmental policyEnvironmental lawForeign policyPublic administrationEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental planningLawPoliticsGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on archival sources, this article analyzes the Canadian contribution to the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. It finds that continental imperatives were of pivotal importance in the development of Canadian foreign environmental policy at the Stockholm conference and its preparatory meetings. In the context of the passage of Canada’s Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, Canadian diplomats set out to use the 1972 conference as a tool to fuel the progressive development of international environmental law and to generate support for a set of marine pollution principles. Following the conference, Canadian officials employed the gains achieved at Stockholm to legitimize and institutionalize the government’s unilateral Arctic anti-pollution measures. In so doing, the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau sought multilateral solutions to bilateral problems in the environmental sphere.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0240.012
Scholarly communication0.0140.005
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207