Evolving Environmental Management and Community Engagement at the U.S.-Mexican Border
Bibliographic record
Abstract
2013 is the 30-year anniversary of the signing of the bilateral U.S.-Mexican La Paz Agreement and the 20-year anniversary of the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) by the United States, Mexico, and Canada. These two agreements stimulated the development of new environmental institutions, policies, and actions for the U.S.-Mexican border region. This paper reviews the evolving environmental policies and programs of the shared border region and growing public engagement in environmental management. Border environmental issues include air quality, hazardous waste, solid waste, natural resources, and others that spill across the international boundary. This paper places emphasis on water-related concerns. Treaties of 1906 and 1944 allocated surface waters between the two countries and the 1944 treaty also established an international commission, the International Boundary and Water Commission, in its modern form with the added responsibility to address water sanitation issues. Although the 1983 La Paz Agreement continued the strong central governmental control of border environmental policy and action, it did allow for greater state and local agency participation as well as some non-governmental stakeholder involvement in border environmental policy matters. The process of negotiation and approval of the NAFTA strengthened existing institutions, created new institutions to address border environmental matters, and institutionalized community engagement in border environmental policy development. Although the homeland security imperative created problems for environmental stakeholder cooperation across the border, new and promising initiatives have emerged. This paper analyzes this increasingly collaborative and inclusionary process of environmental management of the U.S.-Mexican border region.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".