Evaluating climate justice – attitudes and opinions of individual stakeholders in the United Nations Framework Climate Change Convention Conference of the Parties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both conferences of the parties (COP) at Copenhagen (termed “Hopenhagen”) and Cancun were a disappointment as they failed to deliver a legally binding agreement that will ensure global temperature rise remains well below agreed on targets. Achieving this agreement would be the ultimate expression of climate justice. Arriving at this agreement may be facilitated by exploring a deeper definition of climate justice including attitudes and opinions surrounding the components of climate justice. The objective of this research article is to explore aspects of the author's construction of climate justice with climate stakeholders and provide insight into how climate justice might ultimately be achieved within the United Nations Framework Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) context. This article reports results of a survey of attitudes and opinions respecting climate justice at Copenhagen and surrounding climate negotiations of the UNFCCC. Utilizing a definition of climate justice based on legal justice, distributive justice, participatory justice, and an ethical practice, respondents were surveyed in respect of their own attitudes and opinions surrounding the UNFCCC COP at Copenhagen and that of their country. Questions were posed surrounding the desired limits to global temperature, the optimal distribution of obligations for emission reduction targets amongst the global community, and the respondent's opinion of participation in negotiations. This research article concludes with recommendations for improving climate justice through UNFCCC negotiations into the future.
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 | 0.014 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".