MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175811071 · doi:10.1016/j.egycc.2021.100043

The role of carbon dioxide removal in net-zero emissions pledges

2021· article· en· W3175811071 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gokul Iyer, Leon Clarke, Jae Edmonds, Allen A. Fawcett, Jay Fuhrman, Haewon McJeon, Stephanie Waldhoff

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy and Climate Change · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSoftware deploymentChinaGreenhouse gasNatural resource economicsClimate changePerspective (graphical)Emissions tradingBusinessZero emissionClimate change mitigationScale (ratio)Environmental scienceEconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyEngineeringEcologyComputer scienceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of countries – including major economies such as the UK, Canada, France, China, and Japan – have announced net-zero emissions pledges generally consistent with the IPCC's guidelines for 1.5 °C. As countries design strategies to achieve these pledges, decision-makers are faced with questions and issues related to the role of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). This perspective highlights three issues. First, the scale of CDR deployment will determine the level of emission mitigation in the energy system and vice versa. Second, CDR will interact with societal priorities beyond climate. Finally, the location of CDR could have implications for the country-level pledges, and emissions trading. While these issues have been discussed in the literature in other contexts, this perspective highlights their importance for net-zero emissions strategies.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 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

Citations58
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy and Climate ChangeSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207