MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7072144571

THE USE OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL\nPOLICY MAKING AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH:\nA CASE STUDY OF BISMUTH SHOTSHELLS

2006· dissertation· en· W7072144571 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Process (computing)Work (physics)Context (archaeology)Order (exchange)Filter (signal processing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scientific information is required to make environmental policy that will enhance and protect the health of ecosystems. The issues placed on the policy agenda come from the interactions amongst stakeholders, decision makers and other influential actors. These actors include government, civil society, private sector, and planning regimes. Ideally, scientific research then provides members of the policy community with assessed options upon which final decisions are eventually made. <br /><br /> This process is more complex than most in the realm of environmental policy because the goal of sustainability, commonly advocated by government, should serve to guide choices regarding policy alternatives. Sustainability, in practice, requires simultaneous attention to factors such as the needs of present and future generations; consideration for vastly differing social, environmental, and economic perspectives; and development of effective strategies to deal with the interconnectedness and complexity of the world. Management of these factors demands an ability to collect and process massive amounts of information at different temporal and spatial scales. The complexity of such situations means that there are instances when scientific information is not available and decisions need to be made quickly. <br /><br /> Using a case study approach, this thesis investigates the Canadian Wildlife Service?s attempts to achieve its mandate of conserving migratory birds while approving bismuth as an alternative to lead that was shown to cause poisoning of birds. This case study serves as an example of the tension between limited or ambiguous scientific information and urgent decisions. The chosen policy alternative to the use of lead shot was the approval of bismuth shot as a non-toxic substitute in 1997 and banning the use of lead shot nationwide in 1999. This decision to approve bismuth shot was based upon a few studies that were interpreted in a way that made it appear benign when compared to lead. This thesis examines the implications of this decision by conducting a comprehensive literature review of bismuth?s interactions with soil, vegetation, and animals, with some medical information on humans to put findings into an anthropocentric context. Also, analysis has been carried out on the results of a four-year study on bismuth in a wetland site near Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Finally, a ?post-normal perspective? exploration of the Canadian Wildlife Service revealed that decisions could be harmful to both human and environmental health if the values and knowledge of stakeholders are not taken into account and if uncertainties are overlooked. <br /><br /> Key findings generated by the literature review were potential chronic impacts to the neurological and reproductive health of animals exposed to bismuth shot. In turn, bismuth-contaminated meat may be a source of bismuth for humans and therefore guidelines for consumption should be investigated. Also, soil and vegetation have also been shown to accumulate bismuth, but it is unknown if it amounts to toxic levels. The wetland study helped to address the literature gap of bismuth?s fate in the environment. The mean concentration of bismuth in the soil after four years was 6. 40 µg/g, which was significantly higher than the control soil mean of 0. 42 µg/g. Ultimately, in terms of environmental policy, a ?post-normal perspective? offers three main tools for decision makers faced with urgent issues and uncertain facts. Namely, extended peer communities, acknowledgement and demonstration of uncertainty, and making values explicit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Same topicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207