Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the surprise of many Canadians, environmental regulation in Canada has been much less stringent than that in the U.S. since at least the 1970s. The principal reason given for this difference in stringency has been the process by which environmental law has been formulated. Canadian environmental law has typically been made in a very closed and informal fashion, providing industry with considerable power to influence policy but denying the public significant access to policy-makers. In the U.S. the system has been much more open and formal and provides greater opportunities for public participation. This rationale has lead to an increase in public participation rights in the environmental area in Canada. This paper examines the potential effect of increasing public participation rights. Such rights should result in greater information to and pressure on policy-makers. However, as such rights tend to lower costs of access for both the public and for regulated parties, it is not immediately clear how they will affect the relative stringency of environmental law. A factor which has greater impact on the ability of the public or public interest groups to act is the (increasingly) de-centralized nature of environmental regulation in Canada relative to the U.S. This tends to decrease the relative power of public interest groups to apply pressure on legislators by increasing their costs of action, reducing the ability of regulators to deal with extra-territorial effects and increasing the relative power of industry. In addition, while there has been an increase in public participation in Canada, it is not an unquestionable benefit in all cases. The public and regulators may have different views of environmental priorities. These differences may be due to either public attention to qualitative aspects of risk which are not apparent to regulators or to "rationality" problems of the public in perceiving relative risks. As a result, to the extent that increased public participation in Canada in the formulation of environmental law leads to regulation based on "irrationalities" by the public, such increase may actually lead to less optimal environmental regulation. A new institutional structure may be required to mitigate such concerns.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".