The Contemporary Social Contract and Conditions of Climate Policy Intractability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observable declines in public trust in media, government, and science have contributed to intractable climate policy conditions in the time since the landmark consensus of the 1987 Montreal Protocol. This commentary considers how scholars might measure the influence these declivities in public trust have had on the policy process. With attention to how these factors constrain the contemporary social contract, policy scholars can begin to conduct a wide range of exploratory statistical analyses to examine how declines in public trust reduce individuals’ willingness to sacrifice for the greater good and increase the likelihood of policy stagnation. Rather than examine the effective workings of the policy process, this commentary encourages scholars to confront instances of intractability and integrate measures of public trust that may be used to identify practices that nudge intransigent publics toward urgent policy reforms, restore confidence in epistemic communities, and promote consensus in international climate policy deliberations.
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 | 0.034 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".