MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158781220

Beyond federalism: The Kyoto protocol and multi-level governance in Canada

2005· dissertation· en· W2158781220 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dion Curry

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2005
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicy Transfer and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationKyoto ProtocolFederalismGovernment (linguistics)Corporate governanceOrder (exchange)Public administrationPoliticsCooperative federalismPolitical scienceMulti-level governanceWork (physics)BusinessGreenhouse gasEngineeringLawFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis uses multi-level governance and win-sets to examine the effect of formal, informal and negotiation constraints placed on federal, provincial and municipal orders of government on implementing policy related to the Kyoto Protocol. Firstly, the theoretical and historical underpinnings of environmental policy approaches in this area are examined. Then, this work studies the formal and informal institutional constraints placed on governmental levels in Canadian politics. Finally, the negotiation relationships between all orders of government are mapped using a stag hunt game, which clearly illustrates the roles and powers of all orders of government. This thesis finds that the federal government will need provincial help in order to implement policies relating to the Kyoto Protocol, even if they could unilaterally ratify the agreement. In addition, the local order of government can play an important role in the policy process by acting as a bridge between conflicting provincial and federal interests.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.849
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)Same topicPolicy Transfer and LearningFrench-language works237,207