MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Who should benefit and why?: Discourses on REDD+ benefit sharing

2012· article· en· W10179705 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Luttrell, Lasse Loft, Maria Fernanda Gebara, Demetrius Kweka

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoEconomics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing, Finance, and Neoliberalism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYLegitimacyBusinessAffect (linguistics)Public economicsPublic relationsPolitical scienceEconomicsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Before designing effective benefit sharing mechanisms for REDD+, it is necessary to resolve the question of what REDD+ seeks to achieve. The objectives profoundly affect the design of benefit and cost sharing mechanisms. Benefits are not only financial. Few REDD+ projects are providing direct financial transfers to households in their early stages, thus benefit sharing requires attention to a wide range of activities.The legitimacy of the decision making institutions and processes is critical. Legal clarity is needed, as is consensus as to which institutions have the right to make decisions and attention to procedural rights.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.031
Scholarly communication0.0110.017
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0100.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations51
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoEconomicsSame topicHousing, Finance, and NeoliberalismFrench-language works237,207