Особенности законодательства Мексики как государства-члена НАФТА об оценке воздействия на окружающую среду в аспекте укрепления института трансграничной ОВОС
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Member states of the North American free trade zone (NAFTA) Canada, Mexico and the USA developed more than 20 years ago and adopted the NAFTA Agreement about cooperation in environment. The Agreement directly indicated the need of development of the NAFTA Contract on procedure of an environment impact assessment (EIA), however the draft of this Contract is still discussed under the auspices of the Commission on ecological cooperation NAFTA (CEC). In the North American region each state has well developed national legislation regulating EIA institute. However gaps in a national treatment of EIA create need of the international cooperation at the bilateral and tripartite levels. In the present article the author analyzed the national legislation of Mexico, as one of member states NAFTA, regarding regulation of the EIA cross-border procedure at the federal level and level of subjects of federation. On the basis of the carried-out analysis in article the author drew the conclusion about need of development of the Contract NAFTA on EIA in view of existence of a number of legal gaps and various approaches of the states to EIA procedure regulation, especially existence of the federal structure of all states. In the Contract NAFTA on the EIA procedure it is necessary to resolve such issues: creation of the interstate mechanism of exchange of information about a state of environment; definition of the concept «significant damage»; development of the list of the kinds of activity falling under requirements of EIA; definition of the mechanism of settlement of disputes. The article represented that member states NAFTA have to solve this problem together on the basis of international law for maintenance of ecological safety 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.007 |
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".