MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

’n Dekade van demokrasie: omgewingsbestuur in ’n veranderende wêreld

2005· article· af· W6910463632 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageaf
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDie (integrated circuit)Fraternity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Die wêreld se fokus op die omgewing het begin met die konferensie van die Verenigde Nasies oor die menslike omgewing in Stockholm in 1972. Dit het gelei tot die vorming van die Verenigde Nasies se Omgewingsprogram (UNEP). Dié nuwe belangstelling in die mens se rol in die omgewing het egter eers momentum gekry na die publikasie van die verslag “Our Common Future” deur die wêreldkommissie oor ontwikkeling en die omgewing onder voorsitterskap van Gro Harlem Brundtland en die opvolgkonferensie ook genoem die Aarde Beraad in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Die vernaamste produkte van hierdie konferensie was die “Earth Charter” en die Agenda 21 aksieplanne. Kort hierna, in 1994, het Suid-Afrika ’n nuwe regering gekry. Die nuwe Grondwet wat in 1996 aanvaar is, is een van die weinige in die wêreld wat klousules oor die beskerming van die omgewing bevat. Sedert 1994 is omgewingswetgewing in Suid-Afrika aansienlik aangepas. Daar is byvoorbeeld ’n nuwe Nasionale Wet op Omgewingsbestuur, ’n Nasionale Waterwet, ’n Minerale en Petroleum Hulpbronontwikkelingswet, ’n Konsepwet op Luggehaltebeheer en vele meer. ’n Groot aantal nieregeringsorganisasies (NGOs) het die Rio-konferensie bygewoon. Van hulle, soos Greenpeace (en plaaslik Earthlife Africa), het drukgroepe ontwikkel wat groot druk op regerings geplaas het om meer aandag aan die beskerming van die omgewing te gee en die omgewing beter te bestuur. In dieselfde tyd is die resultate van wetenskaplike navorsing gepubliseer wat ’n groot impak op die mens se siening van die omgewing gemaak het. Die ontdekking van die gat in die osoonlaag en die versnelde wêreldverwarming het wye belangstelling ontlok. Dit het gelei tot konvensies en protokolle wat deur die meeste lande van die wêreld ondersteun word, byvoorbeeld 189 uit ’n moontlike 191 lande het die Montreal Protokol vir die Beskerming van die Osoonlaag geratifiseer teen Junie 2004. Reaksie van die privaat sektor het ook nie uitgebly nie en dit is vandag die norm om ook oor die sogenaamde “Triple Bottomline” (ekonomiese, sosiale en omgewingsaspekte) te rapporteer. Die vraag wat nou ontstaan is: wie of wat in die nuwe bedeling – die regering, druk van groen organisasies of reaksie op wetenskaplike navorsing – het die meeste invloed op die magdom nuwe wetgewing en die veranderde klem op omgewingsbestuur in beide die openbare en die privaat sektor gehad? In hierdie referaat word die invloed van al drie kortliks bespreek. Abstract A decade of democracy: environmental management in a changing world The world’s focus on the environment started in 1972 with the Conference of the United Nations on the Human Environment in Stockholm. This led to the formation of the United Nations’ Environmental Programme (UNEP). The new interest in the role of the humans in the environment only picked up momentum after the publication of the report, Our Common Future by the World Commission on Development and the Environment, led by Harlem Gro Brundtland and the follow-up Conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (The Earth Summit). The main products from this conference were the Earth Charter and the Agenda 21 principles and action plans. Not long after this event South Africa had a change in government in 1994. The new Constitution that was accepted in 1996 is one of the few constitutions that contain pertinent clauses pertaining to the protection of the environment. Environmental legislation such as the new National Environmental Management Act, a National Water Act, a Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, an Air Quality Management Bill has been adapted since 1994. A huge number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) attended the Rio Conference. Some, like Greenpeace (and locally Earthlife Africa), developed pressure groups that pressurised governments to give more attention to the protection of the environment and to improve environmental management. During this period results of scientific research that had a large impact on humankind’s perception of the environment, were published. The discovery of the hole in the ozone layer and of the increase in global warming led to great public interest. This led to conventions and protocols that have been ratified by most countries in the world, for example 189 out of a possible 191 countries ratified the Montreal Protocol for the Protection of the Ozone Layer by June 2004. The private sector responded and today it is the norm to report about the “Triple Bottom-line” (economic, social and environmental aspects). The question that arises is: who had the most influence on the wealth of new legislation and the change of emphasis to environmental management in the private and public sectors – the new government, pressure from green organisations or reaction to scientific research? This paper discusses the influence of all three.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.006

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207