MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3118876008 · doi:10.11575/prism/37695

The Case for Participation in Cooperative Approaches Under the Paris Climate Accord

2019· article· en· W3118876008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of climate change and how to mitigate its adverse effects has become one of the preeminent challenges for the international community. Many international efforts have been adopted in the past to address the issue of warming temperatures but have unfortunately fallen short of their stated objectives. The failure of past agreements is largely due to their inability at achieving the level of cooperation necessary from party nations to undertake the substantive actions necessary. Ultimately the lack of broad participation, compliance incentives and progress towards lowering emissions created an obstacle that prevented nations from collectively addressing climate change. In 2015, came a new era in international climate change policy with the adoption of the Paris Climate Agreement. The treaty marked a stark departure from past international treaties, granting individual nations additional flexibility and governance over their respective climate initiatives. Notwithstanding its significance, however, there remains critical challenges that must be addressed if the Paris Climate Agreement is expected to maintain its international support. At present, the United States has declared its intention to withdraw from the Agreement and existing signatories are currently limited to domestic emissions mitigation policies. Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement provides the framework for cooperative approaches between nations. This provision opens the possibility of emissions trading and carbon markets as a means to more effectively encourage cooperation between nations and deliver cost-effective measures to address climate change. Currently, however, the required guidelines and modalities governing Article 6 have yet to be formally adopted, stalling the ability for nations to engage in mitigation opportunities that may exist across borders. From Canada’s perspective, Article 6 holds the potential to improve its ability to meet their climate commitment, assist other nations lower their carbon footprint and deliver a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. To uncover this potential, this paper lays out a hypothetical cooperative approach between Canada and China for the displacement of Chinese coal fired electricity with Canadian LNG. The goal was to test the feasibility of such an agreement, its compatibility with the Paris Climate Agreement and to identify the challenges that may act as obstacles. Based on the findings of this analysis, there exists the possibility for such an approach to occur that delivers a net reduction in global emissions and acts complementary to the climate commitments of both Canada and China. Moreover, such an approach also provides the opportunity for China to address other issues such as air pollution and the transition away from less efficient coal fired electricity plants. At the same time, however, such an agreement is challenged by the low price of domestically sourced coal in China, lack of LNG infrastructure, and regulatory concerns relating to the development and export of LNG in Canada.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.032
Scholarly communication0.0220.017
Open science0.0050.020
Research integrity0.0320.028
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.227
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicFrench Urban and Social Studies→French-language works237,207→