Elements for a Robust Climate Regime Post‐2012: Options for Mitigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the current state of negotiations within the international climate change regime (including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol) and options to be included in a post‐2012 carbon market framework, such as sectoral agreements, soft targets for developing countries and a larger consideration of sinks. The article reviews the different options focusing on their potential to spur mitigation of greenhouse gases in key areas such as energy production. The size and depth of the carbon market, as well as the stringency of the cap and the stabilization path chosen, are variables affecting the effectiveness of different options. The article thus makes a clear case for all large emitters to agree on a long‐term stabilization goal to guide further negotiations on medium‐term carbon market frameworks, and notes that options related to the consideration of sinks, for example, should maintain proportionality with the size of the carbon market to ensure that a sufficient ‘pull’ for technological developments in energy‐related activities is maintained.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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.
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".