MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Governments: Acting in the Public Interest

2021· book-chapter· en· W4289717993 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Deborah M. Gordon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessPublic interestPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chapter 6 examines the role governments play when it comes to oil and gas. It argues that there are serious challenges to global climate governance and that national affiliations matter—when countries keep good company, they are more likely to be more aligned with climate goals under the Paris Agreement. The chapter surveys various countries as to their national climate leadership prospects. These are parsed out into three categories: (1) possible acts to follow (Canada, Norway, Australia, and California); (2) where greater government action is possible (United States, other US states, Mexico and Brazil, the Middle East, Alberta, and Japan); and (3) where the greatest climate risks lie (Nigeria, Russia, Venezuela, Taymyr, India, and China). The chapter concludes with the reality that it is local communities that pay the price for oil and gas climate inaction and discusses several examples where public sector innovations could pay off as governments strive to build back better.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.201 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207