MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547736559 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2015-018

Canada in a Low-Carbon World: Impacts on New and Existing Resources

2016· article· en· W2547736559 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrew Leach

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGoods and servicesCompetition (biology)Resource (disambiguation)BusinessLow-carbon economyCompetitive advantageCarbon fibersNatural resourceNatural resource economicsIndustrial organizationCapital (architecture)CommerceEconomicsGreenhouse gasMarket economyMarketingComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Moving to a low-carbon future will create challenges for Canada's fossil-fuel industries, but opportunities in the form of a new market for low-carbon goods and services. The challenges for the resource sector will vary across commodities. Competition in the new market for low-carbon goods and services will be tough; sustained competitive advantage will be difficult to maintain due to capital mobility. With these challenges in mind, this article proposes three questions for Canadians looking ahead to a low-carbon future. First, how large will the market for low-carbon goods and services be? Second, where are Canada's advantages likely to lie in serving these markets? Finally, what are the roles for Canada's existing natural-resource industries in a low-carbon economy, and what are the strategies to maximize the value of these resources?

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0180.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicCanadian Policy and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207