The Contours of “Cap and Trade”: The Evolution of Emissions Trading Systems for Greenhouse Gases
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article documents the evolution of “cap and trade” as a policy response to global climate change. Through an analysis of 33 distinct policy venues, the article describes how the cap and trade policy domain has developed along spatial, temporal, and institutional dimensions. This discussion demonstrates that following initial discussions of cap and trade in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, the idea quickly spread to other policy venues, creating a complex system of multilevel governance, where many questions about how to govern emissions trading remain contested. The analysis contextualizes recent questioning of emissions trading as an appropriate mechanism for controlling GHG emissions, as well as the ongoing debates about who should govern cap and trade and how it should be carried out. The findings highlight the value added of a domain‐level perspective and suggest the need for future research on the sociopolitical nature of cap and trade policy debates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it