European sustainable development policy (1972-2005) : fostering a two-dimensional integration for more effective institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the creation of the European Community in 1957, little attention was paid to environmental concerns. It's only in 1997, after decades of debate, that the ‘Integration Principle' became formally engraved in European treaties. This principle, requiring all policies to take environmental concerns into account, represents a major landmark in the institutionalisation of environmental policy. Yet the effects of this integration appear unclear. So does its meaning. Does the Integration Principle ensure an effective impact of sustainable development institutions in Europe? We aim to answer this question by casting light on the origin and significance of the Integration Principle. We recapitulate the policy events leading to the formal integration of environmental concerns within EU policy since the 1970s. We highlight its gradual extension from a horizontal (cross-sectoral) to a vertical (cross-societal) dimension and stress the challenges posed by the necessary cross-societal integration of sustainable development policy. As a step toward answering the above question, our hypothesis is that the effectiveness of an institution depends on its integration not only across policy or economic sectors but also across governance levels. We derive implications with regard to the importance of learning to eco-innovation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".