MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123516226 · doi:10.1111/caje.12152

Sharing the burden for climate change mitigation in the Canadian federation

2015· article· en· W3123516226 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christoph Böhringer, Nicholas Rivers, Thomas Rutherford, Randall Wigle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityBalsillie School of International AffairsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasComputable general equilibriumWelfareClimate changeNatural resource economicsEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dividing the burden for greenhouse gas abatement among the provinces has proven challenging in Canada and contributes to Canada's failure to limit emissions. This paper uses a computable general equilibrium model to compare a number of rules for sharing the burden of emission reductions among Canadian provinces. Because of the substantial heterogeneity among Canadian provinces, these different rules imply significantly different relative abatement effort among provinces, and also significantly different welfare implications. We compare these archetypal burden sharing rules to existing provincial emission reduction commitments and find that none of the standard burden sharing rules comes close to existing commitments.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.483
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.249 · 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
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207