The Harmonization Accord: Stakeholder Influence on the Canada-Wide Standard for Dioxins and Furans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998, the federal government, ten provincial governments, and two territories signed the Canada-Wide Accord on Environmental Harmonization, which, among other things, transferred the drafting of environmental standards to the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, an intergovernmental body established to co-ordinate policy. The accord mandated that stakeholder input had to be prominent in the drafting of all new environmental intergovernmental agreements. Federal and provincial government officials hailed the accord as the beginning of a new era of accountability and public and stakeholder participation in the environmental management regime. The response from stakeholders, however, was much more tepid. This essay provides some empirical data on the effect of the 1998 Harmonization Accord on stakeholder participation in the creation of one intergovernmental environmental standard. In particular, the essay examines the extent to which there was significant public access to the intergovernmental policy-making process in the creation of the Canada-Wide Standard for Dioxins and Furans for waste incinerators.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 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".