MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410318649 · doi:10.1080/09644016.2025.2503687

Climate policymaking in crisis: the impact of declining oil prices, COVID-19, and the Ukraine war in Canada

2025· article· en· W4410318649 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathryn Harrison, Andrew Leach

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Politics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Climate change2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPolitical scienceClimate policySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)EconomicsDevelopment economicsEconomyOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public support for environmental policy historically has declined at times of economic crisis. We consider the impact of three economic shocks – a crash in global oil prices, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the war in Ukraine – on climate policy in a highly carbon-intensive country. One might expect Canada to be especially vulnerable to policy retreat given a history of economic crises weakening electoral support and amplifying carbon-intensive industries’ opposition, yet Canada strengthened its climate policies in the wake of each of the three crises. Policy change was primarily attributable to domestic factors, especially policymakers’ personal commitments. External economic shocks had negligible impacts on regulatory policy, though COVID-19 did amplify green spending. The Canadian experience underscores that retreat is not inevitable: governments maintain considerable domestic independence even amid global crises, though how they respond is contingent on the preferences of the government of the day.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueEnvironmental PoliticsSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207