Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter traces the climate change mitigation policy agendas of New York City, Los Angeles, and Toronto, focusing on the period since 2007, and specifically the tools with which they sought to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The climate change mitigation policy agendas developed by the three cities do reflect their particular context and the process of learning and strategic adjustment over time. Each city has a very unique set of programs and policies in place to target GHG emissions, from energy use benchmarking to installing solar panels to incentivizing alternative modes of transportation. In each case, this mix initially reflected the city's strengths and opportunities. Over time, the cities have expanded and diversified their agendas in response to changing conditions and new information. In some cases, the cities have had to readjust when certain approaches failed or lost political support. In other cases, the cities have sought to take advantage of new opportunities or diversified their agendas in an effort to meet more ambitious goals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.220 | 0.111 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".