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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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