International Environmental Law and Community Interests: Procedural Aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strong procedural elements are indispensable for international environmental law’s capacity to serve community interests. Procedural obligations can strengthen the rule concerning the prevention of environmental harm and flesh out its due diligence standard. Procedural obligations can also serve useful purposes when states, or judges, are reluctant to entertain substantive arguments, or find it difficult to establish that environmental harm has been caused. Violations of procedural obligations are more easily established and states can sometimes be prompted to correct harmful conduct or to take more effective preventive measures. Unfortunately, the operation of procedural rules is constrained by the dearth of practice and the continued struggle to define the substance of community obligations and the legal effects of erga omnes norms. Treaty-based approaches have proven better suited to accommodating community concerns, perhaps because they place such strong emphasis on procedural elements and employ increasingly diverse formal lawmaking and informal standard-setting approaches.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".