MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416203298 · doi:10.1177/14614529251397623

The Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law: A normative turning point in European environmental governance

2025· article· en· W4416203298 on OpenAlexaff
Patient Mpunga-Biayi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Law Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Conservation and Criminology Analyses
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental crimeEuropean unionConventionSanctionsEnvironmental governanceEnforcementStrategic environmental assessmentEnvironmental lawCorporate governanceNormative

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law, adopted at the 134th Session of the Committee of Ministers (Luxembourg, 13–14 May 2025), represents a major development in European environmental governance. It establishes a common framework of offences, sanctions and procedural mechanisms aimed at strengthening the prevention and punishment of environmental crime. Its innovative scope lies in its harmonising ambition, which enhances coherence among the legal orders of the Council of Europe, the European Union and the United Nations. By combining interinstitutional coordination, strategic planning, adequate resource allocation, the specialisation of actors and public participation, the Convention elevates criminal enforcement to a central pillar of a systemic environmental policy. Its monitoring mechanism, grounded in cooperation and collective evaluation rather than coercion, embodies the participatory governance philosophy characteristic of the Council of Europe.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0160.008
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0180.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Law ReviewSame topicWildlife Conservation and Criminology AnalysesFrench-language works237,207