Ending the Stigma in Environmental Law - The Sustainability of Menstruation Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the alarming rate of climate change and the resulting negative impact to the environment, there is a dire need to look at non-traditional sources of environmental pollution.This requires going beyond societal norms and encouraging discussions surrounding topics that are typically considered to be taboo. Non-reusable menstruation products result in approximately 250 to 300 pounds of waste per menstruator over the lifetime of an individual. In Canada, approximately 771 000 000 non-reusable products are disposed of annually. One of the greatest challenges associated with the discussion of menstruation in environmental law is the stigma and stereotypes surrounding the topic. This argumentative legal paper aims to bring the discussion of menstruation and its impact on the environment to the forefront of environmental law by discussing the impact of menstruation products and providing policy recommendations to improve the sustainability of menstruation products within Canada.The paper begins by recognizing the importance of the language used in discussing the topic and the concept of period poverty. Research on the sustainability of menstruation products is limited in Canada. This paper examines the available data to further develop and understanding of the environmental impact of menstruation products. This paper then discusses the current international and domestic environmental law framework, specifically focusing on the UN Sustainable Development Goals and Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) to develop a foundational understanding of the law surrounding the area for the reader and provides recommendations.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".