MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113527719 · doi:10.1093/yiel/yvs134

9. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)

2011· article· en· W2113527719 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dane Ratliff, Paolo Solano

Bibliographic record

VenueYearbook of International Environmental Law · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCabinet (room)CommissionAdvisory committeePublic administrationScope (computer science)Political scienceMember statesEnvironmental protectionBusinessGeographyLawInternational tradeEuropean unionArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CEC was created in 1994 under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which was concluded by Canada, Mexico, and the United States as a side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The CEC’s mission is to facilitate collaboration and public participation to foster conservation, protection, and enhancement of the North American environment. A Council, composed of cabinet-level environmental officials from each of the NAAEC parties, governs the CEC, oversees the implementation of the agreement, and oversees the CEC Secretariat. A fifteen-member Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) acts as an independent advisory body to the Council on any matter within the scope of the agreement. The CEC Secretariat is headquartered in Montreal and has a liaison office in Mexico City. It is headed by an executive director who oversees programs fostering co-operation on various North American environmental matters; the development of independent Secretariat reports on North American environmental issues; and a unit that processes citizen submissions on enforcement matters (SEM).

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0190.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.016

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYearbook of International Environmental LawSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207