The Tragedy of the Atmospheric Commons: Discounting Future Costs and Risks in Pursuit of Immediate Fossil‐Fuel Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une des plus significatives approches positives à la politique du changement climatique sur l’échelle exigée par le problème est celle de Giddens. Cet article étale des faiblesses dans son argument et découvre les motivations divergentes pour l'atténuation des émissions et la sécurité énergétique au Canada ainsi qu'en Nouvelle Zélande, contrairement à ce qui s'est passé en Europe du Nord sur lequel Giddens a basé son analyse. Ceci suggère que la réponse au changement climatique varie selon des structures culturelles et géophysiques plus profondes. Cet article examine aussi l'analyse coûts(risques)‐bénéfices versus le principe de précaution, la directionnalité de la convergence politico‐économique avec l'atténuation, et la partisannerie politique au sujet du changement climatique. Il démontre la complexité de faire converger les opportunités économiques immédiates avec l'atténuation du mal éloigné.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".