Strengthening the Role of Science in the Environmental Decision-Making Processes of Executive Government
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
Internationally, there is a growing call to embrace more participatory and democratic approaches to environmental science and policy to improve sustainability outcomes. This presents a particular challenge in Westminster-based systems of government, where participatory and inclusive structures for policy making are considered inherently difficult due, in part, to the high concentration of power in the executive and political elite. To better understand this challenge, we conducted exploratory research into the science–policy experiences of former environment ministers (politicians) and senior bureaucrats who have held executive roles in provincial/ state and federal governments across Canada and Australia and the national governments of New Zealand, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Our results suggest that government organizations could further strengthen a culture of policy-relevant research and evidence-based policy on environment issues by fostering more decentralized approaches to policy and more democratic approaches to scientific knowledge production that better accounts for the complexity of environmental decision making.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it