The USA and Global Environmental Policy: Domestic Constraints on Effective Leadership
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past three decades, global environmental policy has increased in salience in international politics. What role has the USA, a principal actor in global affairs, played in multilateral efforts to promote environmental protection? What factors might account for US actions regarding progress or problems related to global environmental policy? In order to answer these questions, I examine the role of three principal actors in the US political system, namely, the American president, the Congress, and domestic organized interests. This discussion is followed by three case studies (the Montreal Protocol, the Convention on Global Climate Change, and the Convention on Biodiversity) that show the role of these political actors in shaping US global environmental policy. When the USA provides leadership, it bolsters multilateral efforts to address global environmental problems. When it fails to offer leadership, it weakens that effort. Either way, domestic political factors (rather than interstate relations) play a central role in shaping US global environmental policy.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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 it