MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964796025 · doi:10.34989/san-2023-4

What we can learn by linking firms’ reported emissions with their financial data

2023· article· en· W6964796025 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBank of Canada Research · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEquity (law)Greenhouse gasStock (firearms)Climate changeInvestment (military)Financial riskInvestment decisionsEquity risk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the financial statements and stock prices of publicly traded firms incorporated in Canada that report greenhouse gas emissions. We find that these firms primarily use equity financing. We also find that equity investors increasingly account for firms’ emissions when making investment decisions but the impact appears small. This suggests that assets exposed to climate change remain at risk of a sudden repricing.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.366

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.017
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBank of Canada ResearchSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207