MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210674413 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac4ebf

Plausible 2005–2050 emissions scenarios project between 2 °C and 3 °C of warming by 2100

2022· article· en· W4210674413 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

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of Colorado BoulderUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsClimate changeEnvironmental scienceGlobal warmingGreenhouse gasLimitingFossil fuelCoupled model intercomparison projectClimatologyClimate modelNatural resource economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Emissions scenarios used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are central to climate change research and policy. Here, we identify subsets of scenarios of the IPCC’s 5th (AR5) and forthcoming 6th (AR6) Assessment Reports, including the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway scenarios, that project 2005–2050 fossil-fuel-and-industry (FFI) CO 2 emissions growth rates most consistent with observations from 2005 to 2020 and International Energy Agency (IEA) projections to 2050. These scenarios project between 2 °C and 3 °C of warming by 2100, with a median of 2.2 °C. The subset of plausible IPCC scenarios does not represent all possible trajectories of future emissions and warming. Collectively, they project continued mitigation progress and suggest the world is presently on a lower emissions trajectory than is often assumed. However, these scenarios also indicate that the world is still off track from limiting 21st-century warming to 1.5 °C or below 2 °C.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.171 · 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