Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is an analysis of the adoption of environmental regimes by nation states, and the impact on their role as sovereign entities. The analysis is achieved by a comparison of Australia and New Zealand with regards to the establishment of their environmental policies and institutions after the introduction of environmental regimes, to which they correspond. The two regimes chosen here are the Montreal Protocol, which is based on intergovernmental cooperation, and the forest certification scheme, represented by the Forest Stewardship Council, which operates as a market-based regime. The regimes are chosen to embody two different types of environmental governance. Conversely, the countries are chosen for the similarity in culture, history, and language, yet difference in the kind of state system. The countries are compared by a structured, focused comparison. The structure is achieved by use of standardised questions that are based on the Contextual Interaction Theory, and focus on three aspects of sovereignty: autonomy, control, and legitimacy. This allows for comparisons within each regime, which show that the two chosen nation states cede some of their sovereign powers in the case of the Montreal Protocol, and incorporate the Forest Stewardship Council into their policies. A trend of...
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".