MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081669080 · doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.714752

Examining municipal response to a provincial climate action planning mandate in British Columbia, Canada

2012· article· en· W2081669080 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark R. Stevens, Maged Senbel

Bibliographic record

VenueLocal Environment · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Community College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMandateLegislationLegislatureDescriptive statisticsPublic administrationPolitical scienceOrder (exchange)Action planBusinessEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provincial legislature of British Columbia (B.C.), Canada, recently enacted Bill 27, which requires all municipal official community plans to contain greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and associated policies by the end of May 2010. While the legislation is unique by North American standards in its mandate, it lacks particular design features that scholars believe to be critical for fostering compliance. To examine municipal compliance with Bill 27, we address two research questions: what per cent of B.C. municipalities adopted targets by the legislated deadline, and which factors explain variation in target adoption across municipalities? To help answer these questions, we utilise univariate descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses (including mean comparisons and correlation analysis), and binary logistic regression analysis. We find that nearly two-thirds of municipalities adopted targets by the deadline, and that target adoption across municipalities varies with particular municipal characteristics. Our findings highlight the importance of crafting legislation in a strategic fashion in order to maximise effectiveness, and the potential need for provincial governments to target particular sub-populations for additional education and assistance regarding climate action planning. We suggest directions for future research, including additional analysis of the content of adopted targets and associated policies by B.C. municipalities.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLocal EnvironmentSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207