SOLID WASTE POLICIES AND CLIMATE CHANGE – THE CASES OF FEDERAL BRAZIL AND CANADA
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of our paper is to scrutinize the ongoing dynamics surrounding waste and climate policies within the federal democracies of Brazil and Canada. Our research design is guided by four primary inquiries. Firstly, we look at the integration of the circular economy concept within waste and climate policies. Secondly, we explore the extent to which concerns regarding solid waste are assimilated into climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. Thirdly, we assess the degree to which social inclusion is upheld as foundational principle within climate and waste policies. Lastly, we investigate the governance practices that have been put in place to promote effective intergovernmental and state-society cooperations. Initially, we illuminate the commonalities and disparities between Brazilian and Canadian federalism, emphasizing the challenges of policy coordination—a critical prerequisite for a smooth integration and successful execution of solid waste and climate policy initiatives. In the core section of our paper, we adopt a comparative lens to analyze both policy domains, focusing on (a) institutional frameworks, competencies, and the characteristics of the policy-making processes in each country; (b) legislative measures, programs, plans, and policy instruments to elucidate the policy fields and the linkages between them. We conclude our paper by juxtaposing the experiences of both countries and suggesting potential ways for mutual learning to improve federal democratic responses in tackling these complex and interlinked challenges.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it