MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127513667 · doi:10.3138/cpp.39.supplement2.s1

Policy Commentary/Commentaire BC’s Carbon Tax Shift Is Working Well after Four Years (Attention Ottawa)

2013· article· en· W2127513667 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon taxGross domestic productPer capitaRest (music)Consumption (sociology)RevenueEconomicsTax reformGreenhouse gasColumbia universityPaceAgricultural economicsEconomyEconomic historyPolitical scienceGeographyPublic economicsEconomic growthDemographyAccountingSociologyMedia studiesSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

British Columbia’s introduction in 2008 of a revenue-neutral carbon tax shift was controversial. This analysis compares changes in fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, and gross domestic product (GDP) between British Columbia and the rest of Canada. It finds that in the four years since the tax was introduced, British Columbia’s per capita consumption of fuels subject to the tax has declined by 19 percent compared to the rest of Canada. At the same time, its economy has kept pace with the rest of Canada. British Columbia’s experience mirrors the European experience with carbon tax shifting and should inform the federal debate on climate change policy.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.241 · 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