MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416155393 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2025-011

Canadian Climate Transition Policy Risk and the Performance of Green versus Brown Stocks

2025· article· en· W4416155393 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Hany Fahmy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSustainable Finance and Green Bonds
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate policyClimate changeContext (archaeology)Naturalisation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À l'aide d'une nouvelle classification des politiques climatiques et d'une définition globale du risque des politiques de transition climatique (RPTC), les auteurs ont construit un nouvel indice du RPTC mensuel fondé sur les nouvelles canadiennes (RPTC-CAN) au moyen d'une analyse textuelle de six grands journaux canadiens entre 1988 et décembre 2024. Au moyen des données sur les entreprises vertes et traditionnelles faisant partie de l'indice composite TSX/S&P, les auteurs vérifient la validité des hypothèses peu volatiles et à haut rendement des entreprises vertes par rapport aux entreprises traditionnelles après une augmentation du RPTC. Ils ont découvert que les entreprises vertes canadiennes surpassent les entreprises traditionnelles lorsque des préoccupations relatives aux changements climatiques déferlent dans les nouvelles, stimulées par l'indice RPTC-CAN construit par les auteurs. Pour ce qui est de l'effet de l'indice RPTC-CAN sur la volatilité, les auteurs remarquent qu'une augmentation de la contemporanéité de l'indice RPTC-CAN est associée à une diminution de la contemporanéité de la volatilité des actions vertes et à une augmentation des actions traditionnelles. Ils déduisent que les entreprises vertes sont plus résilientes et adaptables aux risques des politiques climatiques que les entreprises traditionnelles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicSustainable Finance and Green BondsFrench-language works237,207