MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905823978 · doi:10.36646/mjlr.40.4.role

The Role of Local Governments in Great Lakes Environmental Governance: A Canadian Perspective

2007· article· en· W2905823978 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Michigan Journal of Law Reform · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWater Resources and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Corporate governanceLaw reformEnvironmental governanceLocal governancePolitical scienceEnvironmental lawEnvironmental planningBusinessPublic administrationLocal governmentGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Restoration of environmental integrity in the Great Lakes Basin has been only a qualified success after thirty-five years of efforts pursuant to policies developed by federal, state, and provincial governments. Many unresolved problems stem from activities under local government control, yet in the past local governments were excluded from Great Lakes policy-making. By looking at recent changes in the powers, interests, experience, and influence of local governments in Ontario, this Essay concludes that local governments now have the ability to participate meaningfully in Great Lakes policy formation and implementation. To include local governments would improve the chances of successful restoration of ecosystem integrity. However, a number of challenges must first be tackled so that an expanded role for local governments can be most effective.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.477
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.184 · 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