Les politiques de contrôle des émissions de gaz à effet de serre aux États-Unis. Qui fait quoi ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the last few years, the inactivity of the U.S. federal government on the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has been widely criticized, both in Canada and on the international scene. In spite of the Bush administration's refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol, however, a large number of states adopted policies, some of them very ambitious, to control their GHG emissions. First, this note reviews state-by-state greenhouse gas emissions. Second, it examines the various measures adopted to control their emissions in a comparative perspective. Although the federal government competence on environmental matters is more centralized in the United States than in Canada, we find that several states have been able to take advantage of the absence of a uniform regulatory framework at a national level to put in motion a set of unilateral and multilateral measures in various sectors. Finally, multiple factors tend to explain the shyness of certain American states to adopt policies that would reduce greenhouse gas, which explains in part the relatively poorer environmental performance of these states.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".