Bibliographic record
Abstract
It may not be a household word, but by now the Kyoto Protocol has become a well-known political slogan. It is either “fundamentally flawed” (George W. Bush) or it is essential for saving the climate and humanity (Al Gore). There seems to be no in between. The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to limit (i.e., ration) the use of energy to satisfy the concerns of environmental groups and other believers in global warming catastrophes. This group includes not only certified kooks but also such notables as former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to Her Majesty's government who equates the threat of warming with that of international terrorism. But Kyoto is quite ineffective, that is, it cannot really affect climate or even change the composition of the atmosphere. It is costly. And it is probably also defunct. Where did this treaty come from? Why is it being adopted by some countries but not by others? And what is its likely 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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.006 |
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".