MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4238887339 · doi:10.15173/esr.v11i2.447

Energy Update

2003· article· en· W4238887339 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Studies Review · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicGlobal Energy and Sustainability Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate Change Plan for Canada The Climate Change Action Plan for Canada was tabled in the House of Commons by the Minister of the Environment, the Hon.David Anderson, on 21 November 2002 in advance of Parliamentary deliberations on the ratification ofthe Kyoto Protocol which began 25 November 2002.The aim was to outline how Canada can meet its greenhouse gas reduction target under the Protocol which was formally ratified on 17 December 2002.The Plan addressed objections to the earlier document released on 24 October 2002 and responded to concerns of industry.Its authors claim 'This Plan strikes the balance needed to enable our economy to flourish even as we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions' and 'This Plan proposes both short-term action and a longer-term perspective.'The report of 55 pages is divided into the following sections: (l) Climate Change and the United Nations Kyoto Protocol; (2) Canada's Approach to Climate Change; (3) Meeting our Target and Innovating for the Longer Term; (4) Canadians, Communities and Governments: Each Doing Our Part; (5) Improving Our Understanding of Climate Change and Preparing to Adapt; (6) Accountability; and (7) Conclusion.There is also an Annex of 10 pages titled' Analysis and Modeling of Cost Impacts' that is mainly a synopsis of the modeling reports issued earlier.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.012

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy Studies ReviewSame topicGlobal Energy and Sustainability ResearchFrench-language works237,207