MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169826340 · doi:10.1093/scipol/scs029

Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction by Rolf Lidskog and Goran Sundqvist

2012· article· en· W2169826340 on OpenAlexaff
Camille Callison

Bibliographic record

VenueScience and Public Policy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGöranPolitical scienceCorporate governanceConventionPublic administrationInternational relationsEnvironmental ethicsSociologyRegional scienceManagementLawEconomicsHumanitiesPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the emergence of climate change as an issue of global concern, governance challenges related to transboundary air pollution provide a rich opportunity for analyzing approaches to international policy. This edited volume takes up the gauntlet with varied analyses of the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) and successive air policies in the EU. The volume grew out of a 2005 workshop that sought to foster dialogue between ‘scientists, experts, decision makers, and citizens’, as part of the Swedish Foundation, Mistra's Programme on International and National Abatement Strategies for Transboundary Air Pollution. Rolf Lidskog and Göran Sundqvist, the editors of this volume, are sociologists from Sweden with over two decades of research on the role of expertise and shaping of environmental governance each. They have undertaken an ambitious program of ‘cross-fertilizing’ the fields of international relations (IR) and science and technology studies (STS). This volume is part of a larger MIT Press series that has similar goals, and is edited by Sheila Jasanoff and Peter Haas. Haas also contributes a co-authored chapter to this volume.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.012
Scholarly communication0.0180.011
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview · Commentary

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience and Public PolicySame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsCategoryScience and technology studiesFrench-language works237,207