MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How do We Manage a Just Transition? A Comparative Review of National and Regional Just Transitions Initiatives

2021· review· en· W3160384615 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRegional Development and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsCommitWork (physics)TypologyPoliticsEuropean unionOrder (exchange)Political scienceTransition management (governance)BusinessEconomic growthPublic administrationEconomicsEconomic policySociologyEngineeringCorporate governance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The concept of a ‘just transition’ encompasses political and policy imperatives to minimise the harmful impacts of industrial and economic transitions on workers, communities and society more generally, and to maximise their potential benefits. This imperative has gained heightened importance as governments commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A wide range of policies strategies and initiatives have been adopted by national and regional governments to facilitate and help manage a just transition. It is a concept that is increasingly being put into practice. This scoping study identifies and compares strategies, policies and practices that are presently being implemented in order to manage a just transition across 25 countries and 74 regions alongside European Union-level policies. This work develops a typology of policy instruments to manage just transitions and identifies implementation gaps and leading practices.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.494
GPT teacher head0.497
Teacher spread0.002 · 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