MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972778067 · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.07.011

Cities and greenhouse gas reduction: Policy makers or policy takers?

2019· article· en· W2972778067 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mark Jaccard, Rose Murphy, Brett Zuehlke, Morgan Braglewicz

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Policy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBuilding Energy and Comfort Optimization
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaPacific Institute for Climate Solutions
KeywordsGreenhouse gasRenewable energyNatural resource economicsJurisdictionEnergy policyGovernment (linguistics)BusinessEconomicsEnvironmental economicsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of cities have set ambitious mid-century targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and increased use of renewable energy. Using the municipal jurisdiction of Vancouver, Canada as a case study, we integrated an energy-economy model with an urban land-use and infrastructure model to test the possible actions resulting from policies potentially available to this city government in pursuit of its 2050 target of 100 percent renewable energy and an 80 percent reduction of GHG emissions. We found that, while cities like the one we studied have some important options for reducing energy use by their inhabitants, they may lack the authority to completely transform the energy system, especially for causing a wholesale switch to renewable energy for deep decarbonization. To achieve such ambitious energy and GHG targets, cities with jurisdictional powers comparable to the city we studied are dependent to some degree on complementary GHG and energy policies from senior levels of government.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy PolicySame topicBuilding Energy and Comfort OptimizationFrench-language works237,207