Towards Cross-Border Environmental Policy Spaces in North America: Province-State Linkages on the Canada-U.S. Border
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of case studies have painted a picture of a burgeoning network of subnational and cross-border regional environmental linkages along the Canada-United States border, a development which may indicate an evolution in governance arrangements such that cross-border environmental policy spaces are being created. In addition to increasing in number, this literature suggests that cross-border interactions have become more formalized, more functionally intense and increasingly multilateral, or regional, in orientation. This paper explores in a comprehensive, cross-regional manner the finding of these case studies with regard to the extent and intensity of subnational activity by examining the findings of a 2005 survey of environmental linkages between states and provinces along the Canada-U.S. border. The survey findings indicate that subnational and regional interactions have been institutionally and functionally ‘intact’ for longer than most observers of Canada-U.S. environmental relations might expect. One of the most interesting findings is that subnational and regional cross-border environmental linkages, contrary to conventional wisdom, have become more numerous over time but not necessarily more intense in functional terms. Moreover, as expected, environmental linkages are clearly regionally concentrated; clusters of highly linked states and provinces can be found along the Canada-U.S. border, particularly in New England, the Great Lakes and the Pacific Northwest. Each of the clusters – or environmental regions – exhibits unique characteristics in terms of the extent and intensity of cross-border linkages.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it