MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244172777 · doi:10.3763/cpol.2005.0510

The choice of multiple or single auctions in emissions trading

2005· article· en· W4244172777 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Svante Mandell

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommon value auctionEconomicsMicroeconomicsEmissions tradingAuction theoryTransaction costQuarter (Canadian coin)Set (abstract data type)Forward auctionMultiunit auctionVickrey auctionDatabase transactionVickrey–Clarke–Groves auctionGreenhouse gasComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Whether CO2 permit auctions should be held on one, several or many occasions per commitment period has not been discussed at any length in the literature. When at all observed, auction frequency has often been set at once per month or quarter. Here, it is argued that for reasons of efficiency, it is generally best to have just one single auction per commitment period. The arguments given relate to the role played by such factors as emission trading design, auction design, market power, transaction costs and, in particular, 'the winner's curse'.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.137 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClimate PolicySame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207