MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803498757 · doi:10.1080/1523908x.2018.1473152

Local governance of greenhouse gas emissions from air travel

2018· article· en· W2803498757 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anna Elofsson, Nora Smedby, Jörgen Larsson, Jonas Nässén

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Policy & Planning · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicAviation Industry Analysis and Trends
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasVINNOVAStiftelsen för Miljöstrategisk Forskning
KeywordsGreenhouse gasCorporate governanceQuarter (Canadian coin)Natural resource economicsBusinessSustainable developmentEnvironmental planningEconomicsPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global greenhouse gas emissions from air travel (GHG-A) are on the rise, and projections point towards a rapid growth in the coming decades. This study aims to examine how local government (cities), addresses GHG-A in their Sustainable Energy Action Plans (SEAP). To fulfil this aim, over 200 SEAPs were analysed focusing on three issues: (1) Treatment of GHG-A in local emissions inventories; (2) Policy initiatives within this domain; and (3) The cities’ perceptions of the conflicts of interests. Results showed that more than half of the cities acknowledge the challenge of GHG-A, around one third include GHG-A in their emissions inventories, and more than one quarter have initiated policy interventions. To categorise these interventions, we have added a mode ‘governing by agenda setting’ to an existing analytical framework, ‘Modes of governing’. With their authority limited to the local setting, this mode of governing is a common channel for cities to push changes at higher levels.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Policy & PlanningSame topicAviation Industry Analysis and TrendsFrench-language works237,207