Bibliographic record
Abstract
Well, it has been an exiting time for the global climate change debate recently. \nThe EU car makers announced that they are not going to be able to meet the \nCO2 limits they agreed with the European Commission for 2008, never mind \nthe not yet agreed, but much tougher limits proposed by the Commission for \n2012. Soon after this ‘uncheerful’, but unsurprising news, it was announced in \nWashington that the Bush administration is expected to abandon plans to \ninclude SUVs in a revised CAFÉ regime. This is to protect the embattled Big 3 \nautomakers who have much to lose from such a change in regulation; much \nmore than their Japanese competitors, in fact. The Big 3 are also still fighting \nthe proposals by the California Air Resources Board in Sacramento to \nregulate on CO2, although a similar regime in Canada has already been \naccepted, albeit reluctantly. Finally, in the UK, the House of Lords select \ncommittee on economic affairs published a report entitled The Economics of \nClimate Change, in which it is suggested that the science underlying the \nKyoto Protocol may have erred on the side of the negative implications of \nglobal warming. The report suggests the science has been somewhat biased \nfor political reasons and that the possible positive results of climate change \nhave been underplayed. This is a significant move as it puts their lordships in \nthe same camp as the self-styled, and much reviled, ‘sceptical \nenvironmentalist’, Bjørn Lomborg. The Danish academic may find himself in \nthe mainstream yet!
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.097 | 0.041 |
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".