Bibliographic record
Abstract
Preface Our work on this volume began in 2008. At the time, like many other observers of the UN climate change regime, we were optimistic that the 2009 Copenhagen meetings would produce at least the basic framework of a post-2012 regime. We embarked on a book project that was intended to provide a comprehensive assessment of the climate regime’s existing compliance system, and an authoritative guide to the new elements of the system, which we were hoping would emerge from the Copenhagen meetings. We were not alone in our optimism about the future trajectory of the climate regime. In a remarkably short time we were able to assemble a first-rate group of authors, comprising leading scholars and practitioners with close knowledge of the climate regime. Our authors enthusiastically committed to a tight writing schedule, designed to produce a complete book manuscript within a few weeks of the Copenhagen meetings. The rest is history, as the saying goes. It became clear in the summer and autumn of 2009 that Copenhagen was unlikely to produce the much anticipated breakthrough. Indeed, ‘Copenhagen’ has since come to be associated with fundamental shifts in the structure and approach of the global climate regime. The Copenhagen Accord, a non-binding policy instrument cobbled together in the dying hours of the meetings, signalled a departure from the prescriptive, internationally negotiated commitments and oversight mechanisms that had characterized the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol and, indeed, the majority of multilateral environmental agreements. Instead of this centralized approach, the Copenhagen Accord heralded decentralization – a shift toward non-binding, self-selected, and nationally or regionally supervised commitments.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.402 | 0.248 |
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".