Regulating genetically modified crops and foods in Canada and the United Kingdom: Democratizing risk regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This article examines the alternate use of models of representative, functional and citizen-centred participatory democracy in the formulation of policies to regulate the risks of genetically modified crops and foods in the United Kingdom and Canada. It demonstrates that representative, functional and participatory democracy have all played a role in the United Kingdom; functional democracy has been ascendant in Canada, with representative democracy playing a secondary role. These cross-national differences derive from the greater imperative for regulatory legitimacy in the U.K., and the Canadian pre-occupation with regulatory effectiveness. The result is a more transparent U.K. regulatory framework that provides representation of a broader range of public values and concerns than in Canada. Sommaire: Cet article examine les différentes utilisations de modèles de démocratie représentative, fonctionnelle et axée sur les citoyens dans la formulation de politiques destinées à réglementer les risques associés aux cultures et aliments génétiquement modifiés au Royaume-Uni et au Canada. Il démontre que les démocraties représentatives, fonctionnelles et participatives ont toutes joué un rôle au Royaume-Uni; la démocratie fonctionnelle a dominé au Canada, tandis que la démocratie représentative y a joué un rôle secondaire. Ces différences transnationales proviennent du plus grand impératif de légitimité de la réglementation au R.-U., et de la préoccupation canadienne de l'efficacité de la réglementation. Le résultat est un cadre de réglementation plus transparent au R.-U. qui représente un plus vaste éventail de valeurs et de préoccupations publiques qu'au Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 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".