Withdrawal of European Soil Framework Directive: Reasons and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Soil Framework Directive was the first policy approach of soil protection at the European level. It had an objective to protect soils across Europe and maintain the sustainability of soil functions. Notwithstanding the significance of the directive along with both the current state and the trend of the soil in Europe were negative, it had been strongly blocked by five member states of the European Union since it was adopted in 2006, encompassing the UK, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Austria. The proposal was withdrawn formally on 21 May 2014 by the European Commission without any official statement of reasons. Consequently, this study aimed at the reasons for the withdrawal and the amendments to the directive, which contributed to restoring its role in soil conservation. It ascertained the reasons and proved some recommendations principally via a deductive approach and qualitative research. The results demonstrated that the resistance of the five main blocking countries was the direct factor in the withdrawal. Behind the statements of opponents, financial difficulties and political issues were the possible underlying reasons. Hence, the European Commission could arrange more meetings and change some provisions to eliminate the misunderstanding with its member states. On the other hand, it is sensible for the opponents to be more flexible to deal with the directive, for instance, establishing the benefits from the articles as well as more approaches for solving the problem of financial shortage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.141 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".