Beyond command and control : do voluntary initiatives hold promise for enhanced environmental protection?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis studies current trends in environmental regulation that represent a shift away from "command and control" and "end of pipe" regulation to voluntary, cooperative approaches that are focused on pollution prevention. The focus is on the regulation of big industry and in particular mining and metals production. Although experiences in other jurisdictions are considered, the primary focus of this thesis is on British Columbia and Canada. Chapter One sets out the methodology employed in preparing the thesis. Chapter Two examines problems associated with traditional approaches to command and control and end of pipe regulation. Shortcomings in existing regulation are identified. Chapter Three identifies many of the expectations and goals of stakeholders with an interest in environmental protection and sustainable development. Reference is made to the interests of government, environmental non-governmental organizations, and, in particular, the private sector/business community. Chapter Four considers four current initiatives which are representative of a trend toward cooperative, voluntary approaches. Chapter Five addresses two questions: (1) what factors and considerations inherent in the reviewed initiatives increase their chances for success? and; (2) what conditions and parameters need to be present to satisfy society's expectations and optimize environmental protection? In addressing these questions, the author sets out several factors that may be important in achieving successful outcomes from voluntary initiatives. Chapter Six concludes that, if the factors outlined in the thesis are employed, society will move closer to achieving an operable state of interdependence, which is essential if optimal environmental protection is to be realized. However, such a result will depend upon the degree of commitment of stakeholders, and in particular, the private sector.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".