It Takes Two to Tango - Climate Policy at COP 10 in Buenos Aires and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP 1) took place from 28 November to 10 December 2005 in Montreal, in conjunction with the eleventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 11). This meeting signifies a successful start into a new era of international climate policy: The Kyoto Protocol, which in the past had been sometimes declared as being dead, has become operational. The challenges of the meeting were framed along the "Three Is", Implementation, Improvement and Innovation. The first challenge (Implementation) entailed in particular the adoption of the Marrakesh Accords, the agreements reached at COP 7 in Marrakesh that set out the detailed rules for making the Kyoto Protocol operational. The second challenge (Improvement) referred to improving the work of the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol in the near future. The third and most important challenge (Innovation) referred to the further evolution of the regime. This article by Bettina Wittneben, Wolfgang Sterk, Hermann E. Ott und Bernd Brouns provides an account of the main developments in Montreal along the lines of the "Three Is". The paper concludes with an assessment and outlook on international climate policy.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".