China's Participation in Global Environmental Negotiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the paper we discuss China's participation in both the 2009 Copenhagen negotiations on a post-Kyoto global climate change regime currently under way and out beyond Copenhagen in further negotiations likely to follow.China is now both the largest and most rapidly growing carbon emitter, and has much higher emission intensity relative to GDP than OECD countries.In the Copenhagen negotiation, there will be strong pressure on China to take on emissions reduction commitments and China's concern will be to do so in ways that allow continuation of a high growth rate and fast development.Central to this will be maintaining access to OECD markets for manufactured exports in face of potential environmental protectionism.Thus the broad approach seems likely to be to take on environmental commitments in part in return for stronger guarantees of access to export markets abroad.This involves directly linked trade and environmental commitments although how linkage can be made explicit is a major issue.More narrowly, the issues that seem likely to dominate the climate change negotiating agenda from China's viewpoint are the interpretation of the common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) principle adopted in Kyoto, the choice of negotiating instruments and form of emission commitments, and the size (and form) of accompanying financial funds for adaptation and innovation.We suggest that a possible interpretation of CBDR reflecting China's desire to leave room to grow when undertaking emission reduction commitments might be for China to take on emission intensity commitments while OECD countries take on emission level commitments.Larger funds and flexibility in their use will also raise China's willingness to make commitments.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".