The Thermostat is Rising Again: Canadian's Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractCanadian public opinion surveys from five Canadian polling firms in 29 separate surveys from 2007 to 2021 are used to measure changes in belief in anthropogenic climate change in Canada. By applying Stimson’s (1991) Dyad Ratio Algorithm to the surveys an index is created which shows a single trend line tracking belief in climate change over time. Belief in climate change declined from 2007 to 2011, then gradually increased to 2021. The research note concludes by suggesting there is an opportunity in Canada for action to address climate change which will continue to solve the problem even when public interest once again declines.ResuméVingt-huit sondages de l’opinion publique canadienne emmenée par cinq maisons de sondages canadiens de 2007 à 2019 sont utilisés pour mesurer le changement de la croyance au changement climatique anthropique au Canada. En appliquant l'Algorithme du rapport dyadique de Stimson (1991) aux sondages, on crée un index montrant une unique ligne de tendance suivant l'évolution de la croyance au changement climatique au fil du temps. De 2007 à 2011, la croyance au changement climatique a diminué, suivie d’une augmentation graduelle jusqu’en 2018. La conclusion de l'article de recherche suggère qu’il y a des opportunités au Canada pour agir contre le changement climatique et qu'ils continueront à résoudre le problème même si l'opinion publique s'en désintéresse.Key Words: Canada, public opinion and public policy, belief in climate changeMots-clés : Canada, opinion publique et les politiques publique, croyance dans le changement climatique
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".