MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Climate Change Litigation in Canada and the USA

2009· article· en· W1965796387 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julia Schatz

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Community & International Environmental Law · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDamagesClimate changeContext (archaeology)Government (linguistics)Greenhouse gasAction (physics)BusinessPolitical scienceNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningLawEconomicsGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the growing phenomenon of climate change litigation in the USA and Canada. It explores the expanding context in which this litigation is occurring and highlights key successes and failures of these actions. In the absence of a comprehensive federal framework in both countries, the article shows how litigation is being used by claimants to attempt to require government action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to force private entities to do the same and to pay damages. Whether a piecemeal approach to climate change engendered through litigation can provide a solution to this global issue remains to be seen.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European Community & International Environmental LawSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207