FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND THE RIGHT TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
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
Freedom of information is essential to exercise the right to environmental protection, which belongs to all people in the world and deserves a special attention as they will not be able to exercise it without access to environmental information. The United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a resolution on human rights and climate change, which calls for increased international dialogue on the adverse impacts of climate change with an emphasis on those States with the greatest need of assistance from the international community. However, the effective environmental protection is only possible through the active participation of the public, so citizens should be enabled to take their own responsibility for the environment more seriously. In this sense, the Aarhus Convention stipulates important rights for the participation of citizens in environmental protection and establishes a number of rights of the public (individuals and their associations) with regard to the environment. This paper aims to analyze whether international law can help to promote the access to environmental information in an efficient way. The adopted methodology comprehends a deductive approach and techniques of qualitative, theoretical, explanatory and bibliographic research, by consulting books, websites, journal articles, news and official documents. The results show a critical view of the current rules and propose suggestions on how the issue of access to environmental information should be addressed in order to benefit the whole international community by promoting access to world’s environmental information.
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 | 0.013 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
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