Pengalaman Malaysia terhadap Pendekatan Kuasa dalam Proses Rundingan Protokol Montreal ke arah Pembangunan Mapan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malaysia has been recognised by the international community as one of dedicated countries in conservation of global environment, which include issues on depleting global ozone layer. Meanwhile, Montreal Protocol is one of the successful international environmental law. Montreal Protocol managed to seek international environmental cooperation among almost all of the states in the world. All of these states have already agreed to ratify the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal Protocol has been enacted for the protection of the ozone layer by taking precautionary measures to control world emissions of substances that deplete the ozone layer. Some of the international environmental law scholars suggested that power approach might influence in the negotiations of creating international environmental law. Moreover the existence of the superiority power in economy, military, technology and science would lead for hegemony. This hegemony most likely would build up more cooperation among states and subsequently influence in the negotiations of creating MEAs, which include the Montreal Protocol. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study is to explain the influence of power approach in the international environmental law on regards of the Montreal Protocol’s negotiations and the relations of the interstates participation response focusing on Malaysia’s experinces. Meanwhile, this study uses a qualitative approach, which is based on interviews among Malaysian representatives in the negotiation processes of the Montreal Protocol. Finally, the results potentially provide with better understanding of the influence of power approach in the international environmental law
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".