MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1646706747 · doi:10.24124/c677/2012367

Subsystem Structures, Shifting Mandates and Policy Capacity: Assessing Canada’s Ability to Adapt to Climate Change

2012· article· en· W1646706747 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jonathan Craft, Michael Howlett

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Political Science Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changePolicy analysisProcess (computing)Adaptation (eye)Government (linguistics)Matching (statistics)Work (physics)Top-down and bottom-up designBusinessEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementRegional scienceEconomicsPolitical sciencePublic administrationComputer scienceEngineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adapting to climate change requires governments to design and implement policies capable of dealing with long-term problems. This poses significant policy design and implementation challenges since policies must also be multilevel and multi-sectoral in nature given the cross-sectoral and international character of climate change issues. Responsive policy-making on climate change issues thus requires both sophisticated policy analysis as well as an institutional structure which allows problems to be dealt with in a way which corresponds with changing organizational mandates, resources and network structures. Designing such policies requires matching policy analytical resources in relevant government departments and agencies with new and expanded mandates, a process which is not always necessarily successful. This introductory article presents the framework utilized in a collaborative study of climate change adaptation capacity in four Canadian policy sectors (agriculture, finance, infrastructure, and transportation) and one US case (the energy sector in Colorado). The study framework and subsequent analysis examine policy from a three-level perspective including (1) the macro nature of the subsystem involved, (2) the meso level of the organization or leadagency in charge of the issue and (3) the micro level nature of policy work being undertaken in each sector.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Political Science ReviewSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207