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
The idea for this special issue – IAPA 2019, issues 3 and 4–startedwitharesearchprojectonSEAeffectivenessin Ireland commissioned by the Irish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 2018). As part of the project, we were to examine and learn from SEA effectiveness in other countries. At Thomas Fischer’s prompting, this evolved into inviting people to write articles about SEA effectiveness in their country. We wrote to about 20 people, expecting a few responses. Instead, we got more than a dozen. This confirms that SEA effectiveness is an important and timely topic – as does the ongoing European Commission ‘REFIT’ of the SEA Directive (EC 2018). This special issue not only provides insights into the performance of SEA across Europe and globally, but can also inform the EU REFIT. We are delighted to present, in this issue, articles about SEA effectiveness in Austria, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, England, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scotland, Spain, Slovenia and Thailand. Most of the contributors have carried out primary research in the form of questionnaires or discussion groups. This has allowed an analysis of SEA’s performance on the ground, by looking at actual changes to the plan and plan implementation, as well as tapping into authors’ personal knowledge. In turn, this enables a more comprehensive examination of SEA effectiveness, rather than simply whether SEA reports cover specific aspects and topics, which has been the focus of most previous effectiveness studies. This introductory editorial gives brief background information about the dimensions of effectiveness that we asked the article authors to address (i.e. contextual, pluralist, substantive, normative, knowledge and learning, and transactive); the procedural dimension which we explicitly asked them to not address; and some of the issues emerging from the articles.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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