An unknown past, an unequal present, and an uncertain future: transnational environmental law through three research challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter seeks to bring into focus three broad research challenges facing transnational environmental law - an unknown past, an unequal present, and an uncertain future. Transnational law theory invites scholars to stand at a distance from current orthodoxies and to contemplate environmental law and its practice from new vantage points. The study of transnational environmental law thus prompts new ways of thinking about where to look for environmental law and its foundational influences. New research agendas emerge organically from such shifts of gaze. By identifying future research agendas, we can illuminate both the diversity of sites of past and present lawmaking and the plurality of ideas that shape concepts of the ‘environment’ and ‘environmentalisms’. These new imaginative spaces are central to understanding law’s roles in a global context - the roads taken and so far not taken.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".