Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kyoto Protocol, which entered into force on 16 February 2005, commits developed countries to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5% in 2012 compared to 1990. Due to the abstention of the United States and the absence of constraint on Southern countries, the protocol establishes obligations only to countries that represent only 33% of global CO2 emissions. All the diplomatic effort is therefore to seek the commitment of discussion for the period after 2012 since it is likely that neither the United States nor China, nor India will adopt the Kyoto commitments. The participation of emerging countries is imperative. Europe has said his new commitment: at the European Council of 22 and 23 March 2005, Heads of State and Government of Member States concluded that should be considered for the group of developed countries, reduction profiles of about 15% to 30% by 2020. This new European order has nevertheless helped to advance the seminar which brought together in May in Bonn, stakeholders in the climate treaty. This meeting showed that progress was possible: two large southern states, Mexico and South Africa insisted that the next climate conference in Montreal in December adopts a negotiating mandate for a post-Kyoto agreement. The position of China has also evolved: climate change is a reality and a major concern but clean technology transfers from North to South are a prerequisite for engagement of the Southern countries. However, India remains on a more critical position, since it considers that the rich countries “continue to increase their emissions and violate their commitments in relation to financial assistance and technology transfer”. The president of the United States has estimated, July 7, 2005, that there was a consensus between members of the G8 on issues related to climate change, particularly on the need to start discussing commitments to be made for the period which succeed 2012 term of the Kyoto Protocol. This discussion of the future should involve the major emerging countries. The work started in 2005 by the “dialogue” on the long-term concerted action has produced promising results which at the Bali conference in December 2007, were the basis for the establishment of a special working group on the long term concerted action. The essential point of this second negotiation process is to search in the effort to integrate the developing countries and, more particularly, emerging economies such as China, India or Brazil, whose current emissions and/or projected should exceed those of developed countries during the first half of the twenty-first century. In retrospect, the progress obtained on this front is modest but significant, especially following the conference of Cancun in November-December 2010.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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 teacher head, 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".