MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393234364 · doi:10.1111/cars.12467

Think tanks and climate obstruction: Atlas affiliates in Canada

2024· article· en· W4393234364 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicolas Graham

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPolitical Influence and Corporate Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersEuropean Climate Foundation
KeywordsPolitical scienceClimate changeReactionaryEliteClimate policyAtlas (anatomy)HumanitiesEconomyWelfare economicsPoliticsLawEconomicsGeologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a longitudinal social network and content analysis of Canadian think tanks affiliated with the Atlas network, analyzing their efforts to obstruct climate action over the last two decades. Network analysis reveals extensive and deepening board interlocks and joint memberships between these think tanks and the fossil fuel industry, other policy-planning organizations within and beyond Canada, and academic institutions. Consistent with and rooted in network ties, Atlas members produce a large and growing volume of climate-related content, including content that denies the reality and impacts of climate change, promotes and defends the fossil fuel sector, and opposes climate policy and action. Atlas affiliates are argued to be at the core of a reactionary segment of Canada's elite policy-planning network opposed to virtually all forms of climate action, while the frames and campaigns they deploy are seen as a force obstructing progress on climate change.

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)0.013
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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0190.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologieSame topicPolitical Influence and Corporate StrategiesFrench-language works237,207