MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Barriers to Achieving Additionality in Carbon Offsets: A Regulatory Risk Perspective

2015· article· en· W2796288576 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jessica Mitchell, Irene M. Herremans, Anne Kleffner

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdditionalityGreenhouse gasCarbon offsetEnvironmental economicsOffset (computer science)BusinessClean Development MechanismNatural resource economicsEmissions tradingPerspective (graphical)Environmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Specified Gas Emitters Regulation (SGER) for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in Alberta, Canada was the first regulation in North America that mandated reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. It allows regulated entities to use carbon offsets in full or in part to meet their reduction obligations. In this paper, we provide an analysis of the policies pertaining to carbon offsets allowed under the SGER. Our analysis reveals several potential risks and barriers to achieving additionality that may prevent regulated entities, project developers, and even society from realizing the full potential of the offset regulation. We identify these perceived risks and make recommendations for improvements that could help to ensure additionality and encourage increased participation in the offset system, ultimately resulting in greater reductions in emissions.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207