How will trade affect carbon leakage? : the impact of bilateral US Canada trade flows on Canadian Kyoto emissions targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis will be examining whether differences in environmental policies between two trading partners, Canada and the US impact the effectiveness of the environmental policy of the trading partner who employs the policy. Specifically, Canada's emissions reductions under the Kyoto Accord are examined to determine whether non participation of the US will lead to a trade induced carbon leakage affect that will reduce the level of greenhouse gas reductions that Canada undertakes. A computational general equilibrium model is used and a sectoral comparison of Canadian and US sectors in emissions intensity is done. Three scenarios are examined: 1) all countries achieve their Kyoto targets with no international permit trading scheme and no US participation 2) all countries achieve their Kyoto targets with an international permit trading scheme in place and no US participation 3) all countries achieve their Kyoto targets with an international permit trading scheme in place but the number of permits are restricted and there is no US participation in the Kyoto Accord. It is found that trade with the US will have a minimal to no impact on Canada's reduction commitment under all three scenarios.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".