MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120312711 · doi:10.1017/s0008423901777773

Les instruments de la politique énergétique: analyse comparée du Canada et des États-Unis

2001· article· en· W2120312711 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frédéric Varone

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy Security and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWelfare economicsIdeologyAgency (philosophy)Political scienceHarmonizationHumanitiesPublic economicsEconomicsPoliticsSociologyLawPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study tests explanations of the choice of policy instruments. The comparative analysis of the Canadian and United States energy policies for the period 1973-1996 concludes that the choice of a policy instrument is a function of (1) whether the degree of constraint involved is consistent with the ideological predisposition of the party in power, (2) whether the agency needed to implement the instrument already exists, thus reducing costs, (3) whether a policy transfer from other jurisdictions is possible or whether policy harmonization is required, and (4) whether the target groups affected by the use of the instrument are likely to oppose its use.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicGlobal Energy Security and PolicyFrench-language works237,207