MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029863173 · doi:10.1080/14693062.2011.582385

Development and climate change adaptation funding: coordination and integration

2011· article· en· W2029863173 on OpenAlexaff
Joel B. Smith, Thea Dickinson, Joseph D.B. Donahue, Ian Burton, Erik Haites, Richard J. T. Klein, Anand Patwardhan

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Policy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPledgeAdaptation (eye)Climate changeNegotiationBusinessClimate FinanceSustainable developmentClimate change adaptationEnvironmental resource managementDeveloping countryNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within a few decades, tens of billions, and possibly over a hundred billion, dollars will be needed for climate change adaptation in developing countries. In recent international climate negotiations, US$100 billion per year by 2020 was pledged by developed countries for mitigation and adaptation. Even if this pledge is realized, it is not clear that it will generate sufficient funds to address the adaptation needs of developing countries. A majority of what has been identified as climate change adaptation needs could be considered as funding for basic development. In addition, a large share of current development assistance is spent on climate-sensitive projects. With the potential for funding of climate change adaptation to fall short of what is needed and for development funding to continue funding many climate-sensitive activities, coordination of the two funding streams may enable more effective support for both sustainable development and climate change adaptation. Preliminary steps to facilitate such coordination are part of the Cancun Agreements and initiatives by other organizations.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.056
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0150.008
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.002

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 head0.309
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.020 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations103
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClimate PolicySame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207