Approaches to the Regulation of Soil Pollution in Russia and Foreign Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Modern approaches to the soil quality regulation in Russia and foreign countries are described. The similarity of the structure of public administration of environmental protection in Russia, the United States, Europe and Canada is revealed, which is reflected in the system of legislative documents divided into areas: component-by-component environmental protection, licensing activities, environmental pollution control, subsoil management, and regulation of pesticide application. The issues of risk assessment, compensation and elimination of damage to environmental components, as well as the development of soil quality standards are considered. Regulatory and methodological documents regulating the procedure for identifying environmental problems, assessing their danger, and developing elimination measures in the United States, Europe, and Canada are developed within the concept of risk assessment. The latter has not been developed in the Russian legislation and is not supported by official methodological documents presented in by-laws. In the Russian Federation, compensation for environmental damage caused by violation of environmental protection legislation implies determining the amount of this damage on the basis of the actual costs of restoring the disturbed state of the environment and is not related to the risk assessment procedure. Environmental quality standards in Russia and foreign countries are set at the maximum permissible level and are determined based on the analysis of the dependence of the biological response on the quantitative measure of the stressor (exposure).
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".