Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force on 16 February 2005, commits developed countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5% in 2012 compared to 1990. Due to the abstention of the United States and the absence of constraint on Southern countries, the protocol establishes obligations only to countries that represent only 33% of global CO2 emissions. All the diplomatic effort is therefore to seek the commitment of discussion for the period after 2012 since it is likely that neither the United States nor China, nor India will adopt the Kyoto commitments. The participation of emerging countries is imperative. Europe has said his new commitment: at the European Council of 22 and 23 March 2005, Heads of State and Government of Member States concluded that should be considered for the group of developed countries, reduction profiles of about 15% to 30% by 2020. This new European order has nevertheless helped to advance the seminar which brought together in May in Bonn, stakeholders in the climate treaty. This meeting showed that progress was possible: two large southern states, Mexico and South Africa insisted that the next climate conference in Montreal in December adopts a negotiating mandate for a post-Kyoto agreement. The position of China has also evolved: climate change is a reality and a major concern but clean technology transfers from North to South are a prerequisite for engagement of the Southern countries. However, India remains on a more critical position, since it considers that the rich countries “continue to increase their emissions and violate their commitments in relation to financial assistance and technology transfer”. The president of the United States has estimated, July 7, 2005, that there was a consensus between members of the G8 on issues related to climate change, particularly on the need to start discussing commitments to be made for the period which succeed 2012 term of the Kyoto Protocol. This discussion of the future should involve the major emerging countries. The work started in 2005 by the “dialogue” on the long-term concerted action has produced promising results which at the Bali conference in December 2007, were the basis for the establishment of a special working group on the long term concerted action. The essential point of this second negotiation process is to search in the effort to integrate the developing countries and, more particularly, emerging economies such as China, India or Brazil, whose current emissions and/or projected should exceed those of developed countries during the first half of the twenty-first century. In retrospect, the progress obtained on this front is modest but significant, especially following the conference of Cancun in November-December 2010.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».