MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388112269 · doi:10.1080/13876988.2023.2255151

Comparing the Sequence of Climate Change Mitigation Targets and Policies in Major Emitting Economies

2023· article· en· W4388112269 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leonardo Nascimento, Michel den Elzen, Takeshi Kuramochi, Santiago Woollands, Ioannis Dafnomilis, Mia Moisio, Mark Roelfsema, Nicklas Forsell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisPlanbureau voor de LeefomgevingH2020 European Institute of Innovation and TechnologyUniversity of TwenteDirectorate-General for Climate Action
KeywordsGreenhouse gasClimate changeFossil fuelQuarter (Canadian coin)Climate policyClimate change mitigationNatural resource economicsBusinessEconomicsGeographyEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Paris Agreement requires that countries submit and update their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to mitigate global climate change. This study projected greenhouse gas emissions to evaluate the progress of 25 countries towards their original and updated NDCs. It found that almost one-quarter of the countries submitted more ambitious, updated NDCs without adopting sufficient policies to meet their original targets. Additionally, in most countries, updated NDCs lead to emissions above current policies. The findings also suggest that these patterns are influenced by national constraints, especially reliance on fossil fuels. Appropriate sequencing of ambition raising and policy adoption is urgently needed to translate the Paris Agreement into action.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.494
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.018 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and PracticeSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207