MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096417743

The Morning After Optimal Greenhouse Gas Policies for Canada’s Kyoto Obligations and Beyond

2008· article· en· W7096417743 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKyoto ProtocolRatificationGreenhouse gasGovernment (linguistics)Energy policyPublic policy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this issue... As the fortunes of the Kyoto Protocol ebb and flow, Canada should focus on a fundamental and enduring objective, which is to implement well-designed policies that lead to a cleaner energy system by fostering long-run technological change without wreaking short-run economic havoc. The Study in Brief In December 2002, after months of acrimonious national debate, the Canadian government ratified the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement that commits Canada to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) to 6 percent below their 1990 level by 2010. Many of those opposed to ratification argued that the government committed Canada to an ambitious target without knowing the economic ramifications. Ottawa has since intensified its existing GHG policies while launching discussions with provincial governments and industry groups in an effort to develop additional programs. It is not yet possible to assess fully Canada's approach, but its emphasis on voluntary initiatives by businesses, consumers, and municipalities, supported by modest government subsidies, is similar to the dominant energy policies

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.941
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0150.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
GenreCommentary

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCanadian Policy and Governance→French-language works237,207→