К вопросу о необходимости укрепления института трансграничной оценки воздействия на окружающую среду в НАФТА
Bibliographic record
Abstract
More than 20 years ago Member States of the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) developed NAFTA Agreement on environmental cooperation. The Agreement specifically pointed the need for the elaboration of the NAFTA Treaty on environmental impact assessment procedure (EIA). This article analyzes the national legislation of three NAFTA Member States (Mexico, Canada and the USA) in terms of regulating the transboundary EIA procedure at the federal level and the level of subjects of federations. The author comes to a conclusion about the need to elaborate the NAFTA Treaty on EIA in view of the availability of a number of legal gaps, and different approaches to the management of the EIA procedure, especially in view of the existence of a federal system of States. The NAFTA Treaty on EIA procedure may provide solutions to the following questions: creation of an interstate mechanism for exchange of information on the state of the environment; the definition of significant harm; development of a list of activities that fall under the requirements of the EIA; determination of the dispute settlement mechanism. It appears that Mexico, Canada and the USA must work together to solve these problems in accordance with international law in order to maintain environmental security in the region.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".