MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017317164 · doi:10.1111/reel.12330

Fifty shades of binding: Appraising the enforcement toolkit for the EU’s 2030 renewable energy targets

2020· article· en· W3017317164 on OpenAlexaff
Alessandro Monti, Beatriz Martínez Romera

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Comparative & International Environmental Law · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGovernment, Law, and Information Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsDirectiveRenewable energyEnforcementEuropean unionCommissionMember statesBusinessCorporate governanceMember stateEuropean commissionEnvironmental economicsPolitical scienceLaw and economicsInternational tradeEconomicsLawEngineeringFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In December 2018, the European Union (EU) adopted a recast of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II), which introduces a new target of 32 percent renewable energy to be reached at the EU level by 2030. This target represents a discontinuity with the one enshrined in the previous Directive (RED I), as it is binding only for the EU as a whole but not for individual Member States. Such a policy shift paves the way to new legal challenges for the deployment of renewable energy. Yet, the contextual approval of the Regulation on the Governance of the Energy Union also provides the European Commission with an enforcement toolkit to respond to Member States’ ambition and delivery gaps in their National Energy and Climate Plans. Providing an appraisal of the RED II and the Governance Regulation, this article argues that, despite the lack of binding renewable energy targets at Member State level, the Commission is equipped with the necessary instruments to ensure the enforcement of the collective 2030 renewable energy target.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European Comparative & International Environmental LawSame topicGovernment, Law, and Information ManagementFrench-language works237,207