MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795967076

Transboundary Pollution and Cercla Liability: International Manufacturers' Ability to Exploit Aerial Depositions

2018· article· en· W2795967076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Callahan

Bibliographic record

VenueIdaho law review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExploitLiabilityBusinessPollutionEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementFinanceComputer securityComputer scienceEconomicsEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Trail Smelter has a long and extensive history of pollution issues. The most recent claim against the Trail Smelter is the aerial deposition of hazardous waste theory. The Ninth Circuit has rejected attaching Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability to the Trail Smelter under the aerial deposition theory, but this holding cannot be accepted if the goal is to control pollution. Many issues arise with controlling transboundary pollution, including the enforcement of international agreements on the matter. In the absence of establishing an enforceable international treaty between the United States and Canada, CERCLA presents a viable option to help control transboundary air pollution. “Disposal’s” definition under CERCLA includes the term “deposit,” which promotes attaching CERCLA liability to foreign manufacturers for pollution harms that occur within the United States’ territorial boundaries. In order to reduce the harm caused by transboundary air pollution, and to promote CERCLA’s purpose, there is a need to recognize that CERCLA liability can attach to the aerial depositions of hazardous waste.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIdaho law reviewSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207