MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299190506

The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate: What it is and What it is Not

2007· article· en· W2299190506 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Noriko Fujiwara

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipBenchmarkingEnergy povertyChinaEnergy securityClimate changeEconomic growthPovertyAsia pacificPolitical scienceBusinessEnvironmental resource managementInternational tradeEconomicsEngineeringRenewable energy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been a growing interest in the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a multilateral initiative of six founding partner countries in the region - Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea and the US - for addressing air pollution, energy security and climate protection in a way that facilitates development and poverty eradication. Canada became the 7th member in October 2007. This paper presents an overview of the Asia Pacific Partnership, beginning with a literature review. This is followed by a comparison of the initiative with the EU energy and climate change package and an examination of the role that the Partnership can play in the emerging landscape of reorganising climate cooperation in both its formal and informal aspects: bilateral and multilateral technology partnerships which are compatible with the UNFCCC objective; and development of tools for measuring progress such as benchmarking, performance indicators and energy efficiency or environment indices. Through coordination with actions in each aspect in other parts of the world or those on a global scale, the Partnership could have wider implications beyond its partner countries.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207