MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994424437 · doi:10.1177/0007650311427595

The ClimateWise Principles

2011· article· en· W1994424437 on OpenAlex

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

VenueBusiness & Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRegulation and Compliance Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)IncentiveClimate changeInstitutionScholarshipPoliticsGreenhouse gasBusinessPublic economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the private insurance sector has started to incorporate climate change issues into its standard business practices and even begun to lobby governments to regulate and reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The establishment of the ClimateWise Principles (ClimateWise) in 2007 embodies this effort. ClimateWise is an example of what scholars studying corporate strategy identify as a self-regulatory institution. To date, however, academic scholarship has failed to explain the emergence and function of ClimateWise, a unique initiative designed to leverage the insurance industry’s technical and political authority in governing climate change risks. This article will make the case that ClimateWise emerged in response to strategic incentives to reduce exposure to climate change risks, but that the form of this unusual self-regulatory institution was driven by institutional conditions.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.146 · 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