MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134902088 · doi:10.1080/1943815x.2012.693091

American business interests meet air pollution transport science: understanding the US response to trans-Pacific air pollution

2012· article· en· W2134902088 on OpenAlexaff
Owen Temby

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrative Environmental Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir pollutionChinaAir quality indexPollutionGovernment (linguistics)Environmental planningBusinessNatural resource economicsEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceEnvironmental protectionEconomicsMeteorologyLawGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the discovery of air pollution traveling from China to the US during the late 1990s, trans-Pacific air pollution (consisting of a range of non-CO2 greenhouse gases) has been an emerging global environmental issue. But how has it been addressed, how does it relate to the existing multilateral air pollution regime, and who are the interested parties? This article addresses these questions by examining the evolution of the science of trans-Pacific air pollution, discussing the way in which this science has been made policy-relevant by researchers working under the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, and by illustrating how American economic interests concerned with the effects of trans-Pacific air pollution on American land values and industry have used this scientific knowledge to lobby the US government for regulatory relief. Trans-Pacific air pollution arguably causes regions of the US to violate National Ambient Air Quality Standards, resulting in unwanted federal involvement in local decision-making and tighter regulatory standards, which impedes local economic development and lowers property values. At the same time, laxer environmental standards in China result in increased pollution and lower American industrial competitiveness. The result has been that the US Chamber of Commerce and the Alliance for American Manufacturing have begun to develop policy alternatives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Integrative Environmental SciencesSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207