MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073954676

International procedures for environmental protection initiated by individuals

2015· article· en· W7073954676 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSCIndeks · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicearthquake and tectonic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Context (archaeology)LimitingWork (physics)Derogation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The text analyzes international compliance procedures related to the 1993 North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation, the 1998 Convention on the Access to Information, Public Participation to Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and the 1999 Protocol on Water and Health to the 1992 Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes. The common feature of these procedures is that they can be initiated by individuals and non-governmental organizations. This novelty of international compliance procedures in environmental matters made them comparable with international procedures established by universal human rights treaties. All of them can be initiates by communications of individuals. The three mentioned procedures were established due to different reasons. By the pressure of environmental non-governmental organizations and to satisfy some economic concerns, the North American Free Trade Treaty was supplemented by the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation that was aimed at improvement of the application of national environmental law. Unequal levels of the application of national environmental laws in Canada, Mexico and the USA might have negative consequences to trade between them and to environmental protection in them. To prevent such development the Agreement was concluded and individuals and NGO-s are allowed to trigger international fact-finding procedure. The subject-matter and purposes of the Aarhus Convention - democratization of environmental governance - implies that the public should have the right to initiate international conciliatory procedures. In spite of the fact that subject-matter and purposes of the London protocol are different, corresponding conciliatory procedure was inspired by the Aarhus procedure. All three procedures are intended, at last resort, to improve protection of the environment. The protection of an individual interest is not the first aim. Due to that, legal standing and rule on local remedies are not defined in the same way as in human rights proceedings. Value of these proceedings is not manifested just in an achievement of the higher effectiveness of environmental law, but also in democratization of an important field of international cooperation.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.594

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.198 · 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