Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The promotion of compliance with international environmental commitments is among the most challenging issues of global environmental governance. Compliance is an issue that straddles various arenas and disciplinary debates. Not only has the issue received much attention in both the practice and the theory of global governance, it is also a genuine ‘governance’ issue in that it demands engagement of international lawyers with the insights of international relations experts, and vice versa. In the context of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), the topic of compliance has come to be synonymous with the design of non-compliance procedures and other strategies specifically geared to promoting compliance. Six MEA-based non-compliance procedures are in effect, several others are at various stages of negotiation. Indeed, the inclusion of a compliance regime appears to have become a routine agenda item for MEA negotiations. Often, the main question is not so much whether a compliance procedure should be developed but what its approach should be: should it be largely ‘soft’ and facilitative, or should it include ‘hard’, enforcement-oriented features? In this respect, the debates about the design of MEA-based compliance regimes have much overlap with the prominent theoretical debate about whether compliance is best promoted through managerial or enforcement-oriented approaches. The rapid evolution of MEA-specific compliance procedures illustrates that the practice of international environmental law has come a long way in a relatively short period of time. A little over ten years ago, MEAs contained only limited compliance-related elements.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".