Exploring access to NAFTA's environment commission complaint process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper raises questions about the accessibility of the Articles 14 & 15 submissions mechanism, a public complaint process that attempts to use the eyes of ordinary persons in Canada, Mexico and the US to monitor an important environmental treaty obligation: NAFTA signatories' commitment to effectively enforce their environmental laws. In order to consider whether the Articles 14 & 15 review tool is accessible, we assemble a set of indicators that nourish four hypotheses, which may reveal if the review tool is sufficiently well installed to attain its long term objectives in a significant measure. The hypotheses are: 1) that the CEC receives an insufficient amount of submissions; 2) that it takes considerable or random times to process them; 3) that it consistently takes longer, or has more troubles, to process Mexican and disadvantaged-group cases; 4) that few complainants harvest any benefits from complaining, being more likely that they do if they are rich environmental NGOs than if they are ordinary individuals. The information we present is based on primary research and statistical information on the processing of NAAEC Articles 14 and 15 submissions. Our chief objective is not to conclusively prove or disprove these hypotheses, but to provide a framework to respond these questions. By consistently focusing their efforts on evaluating the attainment of the ultimate objectives of this review tool, all authors who have critiqued the Articles 14 & 15 submissions process have failed to consider whether the complaint mechanism is effectively positioned to capture environmental law enforcement information from all of its target population. Instead, this paper explores the implementation of Articles 14 & 15 by generating information on the attainment of its midcourse objectives. This paper may be of interest to persons working on issues concerning the implementation and further elaboration of NAAEC Articles 14 and 15 and to those pondering whether and how the proposed FTAA and the Canada-Chile Free Trade Accord should be structured to deal with the environmental consequences of further economic integration.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".