MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081103255 · doi:10.3152/146155108x366013

Transboundary environmental impact assessment as part of the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

2008· article· en· W2081103255 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Geoffrey Garver, Aranka Podhora

Bibliographic record

VenueImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationFree trade agreementCommissionEnvironmental impact assessmentLegislationWork (physics)International tradeTrade agreementAgreementPolitical scienceEnvironmental policyBusinessEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental planningFree tradeGeographyLawEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), the environmental side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), was adopted in 1993 as an unprecedented response to growing environmental concerns about liberalized trade. The NAAEC created the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) and established a broad framework for North American environmental cooperation. NAAEC Article 10(7) called for the NAFTA governments to work toward an agreement on transboundary environmental impact assessment (TEIA). Negotiation of a TEIA agreement among the NAFTA partners, only one of which (the USA) shares a border with the others, involved significant challenges, including differences among the domestic EIA legislation and policy regimes of Canada, Mexico and the USA. Fifteen years later, these challenges have so far prevented completion of a TEIA agreement. A clearer role for the CEC in supporting and facilitating negotiation of a TEIA agreement, and in supporting it once adopted, could help overcome these challenges.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImpact Assessment and Project AppraisalSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207