MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409235460 · doi:10.1080/17583004.2025.2486624

Scope 3 decarbonization through environmental attribute certificates

2025· article· en· W4409235460 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael E. Raynor, Sanjith Gopalakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueCarbon Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScope (computer science)Environmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental planningComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from economic activity is a growing priority for companies globally in support of corporate net-zero targets. Scope 3 emissions—those occurring throughout a company’s value chain—are not only the largest share of most companies’ carbon liability, but also the most difficult to address. The prescribed approach relies on “supplier engagement,” a catch-all term that includes everything from moral suasion to economic subsidy. However, this often fails to extend beyond first- and second-tier suppliers. This leaves the bulk of upstream emissions—generated by deep-tier, hard-to-abate commodity producers—unaddressed. Environmental Attribute Certificates (EACs) are market-based instruments representing verified environmental attributes (e.g., the quantity of GHG emissions per unit of production) linked to specific upstream commodities. We propose that by enabling downstream firms to purchase these certificates and claim verified decarbonization benefits independent of physical supply chain flows, EACs can support an insetting regime that bridges supply chain distances and provides a scalable pathway to Scope 3 decarbonization. Whether through bilateral deals or inclusive market platforms, EACs can offer demand guarantees and price stability to producers of hard-to-abate commodities, supporting investment in low-carbon technologies. Critical implementation issues such as responsibility accounting, double counting, and frameworks to ensure credibility are also acknowledged.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCarbon ManagementSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207