MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252202710 · doi:10.1162/152638002320980623

A Quantitative Approach to Evaluating International Environmental Regimes

2002· article· en· W4252202710 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Environmental Politics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuantitative analysis (chemistry)Complement (music)Variation (astronomy)Context (archaeology)EconometricsEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative analysis of environmental regime effects can complement qualitative analyses by allowing investigation of variation in the effects of different regimes as well as the causes and conditions that explain that variation. Such analysis involves developing metrics that allow comparison of the influence of disparate regimes, models that distinguish regime influence from other explanatory factors, and data sets of independent and dependent variables of sufficient quality to support quantitative analysis. The many theoretical, methodological, and empirical obstacles to undertaking quantitative research on regime effectiveness are daunting but surmountable. By using data regarding component parts of regimes (“subregimes”) broken down to the country and year level, quantitative techniques offer promise in identifying which regimes induce greater behavioral change and greater “effort” and, more importantly, what characteristics of those regimes and the context in which they operate explain their greater success.

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)0.000
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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.007

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 head0.141
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.142 · 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