MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087697722 · doi:10.1111/1540-5982.t01-1-00010

Economic and environmental impacts of the Kyoto Protocol

2003· article· fr· W2087697722 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKyoto ProtocolGreenhouse gasHumanitiesEconomicsEconomyWelfare economicsPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2003 the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes legally binding greenhouse gas emission constraints on industrialized countries, is likely to enter into force. The Protocol has been celebrated as a milestone in climate protection, but standard economic theory casts doubt that it will go beyond symbolic policy. In this paper, we show that the final concretion of the Kyoto Protocol is consistent with the theoretical prediction: Kyoto more or less boils down to business‐as‐usual without significant compliance costs to ratifying parties. JEL Classification: D58, Q43, Q58 Conséquences économiques et environnementales du protocole de Kyoto En 2003, le protocole de Kyoto, qui impose aux pays industrialisés l’obligation de réduire leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre, entrera probablement en vigueur. Si le protocole a été accueilli comme un grand pas en avant dans le combat pour protéger l’environnement, la théorie économique jette un regard sceptique sur la portée réelle d’un tel accord et le considére comme un geste symbolique. Dans ce mémoire, on montre que la concrétisation finale de l’accord de Kyoto s’arrime aux prédictions théoriques : Kyoto n’est rien de plus que « business‐as‐usual » et n’impliquera pas de coûts significatifs pour les parties qui ont signé le protocole.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.055 · 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