MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460755600 · doi:10.1515/ldr-2015-0034

The Odd Couple: Uniting Climate Change Mitigation and Sustainable Development under the Clean Development Mechanism

2015· article· en· W2460755600 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Condon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Law and Development Review · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClean Development MechanismKyoto ProtocolSustainable developmentMechanism (biology)Foreign direct investmentInvestment (military)EconomicsBusinessClimate changeEnvironmental economicsEconomic systemPolitical scienceEcologyLawMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article assesses the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in meeting its twin aims of emission reductions and sustainable development. To date, the CDM has failed to achieve these goals. This article argues that the CDM’s shortcomings are due to path dependence, with the CDM stuck at a suboptimal equilibrium of insufficient institutions, capital and leadership. A reform scheme involving foreign direct investment, foreign aid and CDM amendments is prescribed for pushing the CDM to a more efficient and prosperous path. A properly functioning CDM would afford both developed and developing countries the opportunity to secure a more sustainable economic and environmental future.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.118 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Law and Development ReviewSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207