A COMPARATIVE CLIMATE POLICY STUDY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL STATES OF GERMANY AND CANADA: THE CASE OF THE GERMAN ENERGIEWENDE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change has become one of the most difficult problems that humankind is confronted with in recent times, especially since the problem seems to defy most policies developed to curb it. In a problem-solving context, it is classified as a wicked problem and by far, the most concerning environmental problem humans have had to face. As much as many climate mitigation efforts have failed across the globe, a couple of them have also gained some success. The German Energiewende is one such case. The Energiewende, according to most authors and observers, has been a resounding success, but the problem is that the assertion tends to be based solely on a single state level analysis with the German political and environmental elements as the standards of measurement. No serious comparative study has been done on the policy in terms of the possibility to replicate it in other jurisdictions. In this regard, this paper seeks to investigate if the German Energiewende’s success is limited to Germany alone due to its federal system peculiarities or it can be replicated in other countries like Canada. Canada is selected for this comparative study because though Canada, like Germany, is a federal state, the federal government has done little to ensure a successful national climate policy. Besides, the few attempts made by the federal government to develop and implement a national climate legislation have often attracted opposition from the provincial governments. This study thus will shed light on what Germany did differently, how Germany is politically different from Canada and how that has contributed to the success story of Germany’s Energiewende.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".