MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2314395732 · doi:10.3184/003685016x14528569315192

The 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference: Cop21

2016· article· en· W2314395732 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher J. Rhodes

Notice bibliographique

RevueScience Progress · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
ThématiqueClimate Change Policy and Economics
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConference of the partiesSummitKyoto ProtocolClimate changeConventionGreenhouse gasEarth SummitUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeNegotiationPolitical scienceAction planWork (physics)Sustainable developmentEnvironmental protectionGeographyLawPhysical geographyEngineeringEconomicsEcology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction and overview COP21 (1) is the latest in the annual Conference of Parties, which began in Berlin in 1995, with a main aim to review the implementation of the Convention--the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (2) (UNFCCC)--which entered into force on the 21 March 1994. The UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit of 1992, and sets out an overall framework intended to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GFIGs) so to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The UNFCCC membership is now practically universal and, as of December 2015, consists of 197 parties. Some of the more significant conferences (and their associated actions) include COP3 (Kyoto Protocol adopted), COP 11 (Montreal Action Plan agreed), COP 15 in Copenhagen (agreement not achieved to implement the Kyoto Protocol) and COP 17 in Durban (Green Climate Fund agreed). COP21 stands out from all previous conferences (1), in that it aimed to limit the rise in global temperatures to well below 2 [degrees]C above pre-industrial levels (with the background target being 1.5 [degrees]C), by establishing a universal agreement on climate, among all the nations of the world, that is legally binding. The negotiations at COP21 led to the Paris Agreement3 being adopted on 12 December 2015, which governs measures for climate change reduction from 2020, and concluded the work of the Durban platform, which was set out as part of the activities of COP 17. However, it is required (3) that 55 countries which produce at least 55% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 1) ratify the Agreement, in order for it to enter into force and become fully binding. The Agreement must be signed in New York between 22 April 2016 and 21 April 2017, by these parties, who must also assimilate it, as appropriate, within their own legal systems, via ratification, acceptance, approval, or accession. However, it is speculated that some parties, particularly the United States, may not agree to do so. Indeed, although it is a requirement that each country that ratifies the agreement must set a target for its reduction in emissions, there is no compulsory amount for this (4). Moreover, there is to be no means to compel the setting of a target by a specific date nor penalty measures imposed should a set target not be met (4) (in contrast with the more specific and draconian Kyoto Protocol). Any noncompliant countries will merely be named and shamed, which has contributed to severe criticism of the whole enterprise, e.g. by such eminent figures as James Hansen, who is quoted (5) as saying: [FIGURE 1 OMITTED] a fraud really, a fake. just bullshit for them to say: 'We'll have a 2 [degrees]C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.' It's just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned. At COP21, particular focus has been given to two primary issues: namely, whether the critical temperature limit should be set at 1.5 [degrees]C or 2 [degrees]C above preindustrial levels; and the appropriate level of funding that should be awarded by developed nations to developing countries that are potentially vulnerable to sea-level rise, and to expectedly more severe weather events (5). In Hansen's view, all of this carries little weight without taxes for greenhouse gas emissions being imposed equally and globally, being of the belief that this is the only strategy that can drive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at the relatively rapid rate that is necessary to mitigate the worst possible scenarios of climate change (5). However, the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry has opposed Hansen's criticisms of COP21, and is adamant that the deal will auger in a global replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy sources (6). …

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,124
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,414

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,008
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,002
Communication savante0,0160,004
Science ouverte0,0030,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1240,056

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,151
Tête enseignante GPT0,316
Écart entre enseignants0,165 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations314
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScience ProgressMême sujetClimate Change Policy and EconomicsTravaux en français237 207