MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899679923 · doi:10.11575/sppp.v11i0.43673

Assessing Policy Support for Emissions Intensive and Trade Exposed Industries

2018· article· en· W2899679923 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Dobson, Jennifer Winter

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEmissions tradingEnvironmental scienceInternational tradeEconomicsNatural resource economicsIndustrial organizationGreenhouse gasGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jurisdictions implementing emissions pricing often face concerns arising from emissions-intensive and trade exposed (EITE) industries. These industries face higher costs than counterparts in other jurisdictions without emissions pricing. There is also risk of emissions leakage, where economic activity from EITE industries in a jurisdiction with emissions pricing leaves for jurisdictions without pricing, leading to lower economic activity and no net reduction in emissions. As a result of these two concerns, jurisdictions implementing carbon pricing often implement complementary policy to mitigate the cost impacts on EITE industries. In this paper we provide an overview of the EITE definitions and support policies in place in Canada and compare those to definitions and policies in Australia, California and the European Union. We evaluate both domestic and international EITE support policies using the metrics of administrative costs, economic efficiency, emissions reduction incentive, and equity across and within sectors.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.629
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.062 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207