MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240902645 · doi:10.1093/yiel/yvs038

9. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)

2010· article· en· W4240902645 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paolo Solano, Dane Ratliff

Bibliographic record

VenueYearbook of International Environmental Law · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionScope (computer science)Advisory committeeUnit (ring theory)Public administrationPolitical scienceFree trade agreementMember statesEuropean commissionEnvironmental protectionBusinessInternational tradeGeographyLawEuropean unionFree trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CEC was created in 1994 under the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which was concluded by Canada, Mexico, and the United States as a side agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The CEC’s mission is to facilitate collaboration and public participation to foster conservation, protection, and enhancement of the North American environment. A Council composed of ministerial-level environmental officials from each of the three parties to the agreement governs the CEC, oversees the implementation of the agreement, and oversees the CEC Secretariat. A fifteen-member Joint Public Advisory Committee (JPAC) acts as an independent advisory body to the Council on any matter within the scope of the agreement. The CEC Secretariat is headquartered in Montreal and has a liaison office in Mexico City. It is headed by an executive director who oversees programs fostering co-operation on various North American environmental matters, a unit that processes citizen submissions on enforcement matters, and the development of independent Secretariat reports on North American environmental issues within the scope of the annual program or related to the co-operative functions of the agreement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueYearbook of International Environmental LawSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207