MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1764815041 · doi:10.1002/wcc.57

How can the current CDM deliver sustainable development?

2010· article· en· W1764815041 on OpenAlex
Adam Bumpus

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClean Development MechanismSustainable developmentCorporate governanceGreenhouse gasDecoupling (probability)Work (physics)PoliticsMechanism (biology)Environmental economicsPolitical scienceBusinessClimate policyEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsEngineeringFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The two aims of the clean development mechanism (CDM) were to reduce greenhouse gases cost effectively and contribute to sustainable development (SD) in developing countries. So far, however, SD components of the mechanism have been questionable. In this opinion article, we argue for a more theoretically informed engagement with the CDM that could be empowered through the better provision of transparent and clear information in the project implementation processes. Drawing on our work in Latin America, we concur with other authors that the CDM as it stands does not ‘deliver’ SD, but that improved information and a research agenda that focuses on the multi‐level political economy of project‐based CDM could assist in the mechanism delivering on multiple forms of SD in local contexts. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This article is categorized under: Climate and Development > Decoupling Emissions from Development Policy and Governance > International Policy Framework

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.177 · 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