Bibliographic record
Abstract
The surge of state adoption of policies to mitigate climate change in the late 1990s and 2000s appeared to be the first wave of an ongoing expansion of the use of policy tools such as carbon cap-and-trade in the absence of binding federal constraints. Horizontal, regional, and vertical diffusion all loomed as possibilities at the beginning of the current decade. Instead, a substantial number of states have rescinded earlier policy commitments, as have some Canadian provincial partners, raising the possibility of an unanticipated process of reverse diffusion. This paper examines this process and also considers the durability of three distinct regional cap-and-trade zones that were established with comparable design and intent but have met very different political fates, including full-collapse, partial-collapse, and considerable durability. The analysis of these regional entities places particular emphasis on their political and institutional resiliency, their ability to be flexible through mid-course adjustments as new information emerges, and their capacity to build constituency support to counter opposition to cost-imposition. The paper also considers ways in which emerging changes in federal climate policy through executive branch action may create new incentives for state engagement with cap-and-trade and potentially reverse the process of reverse diffusion.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".