MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062419781 · doi:10.1029/2004eo410003

Kyoto Protocol moves forward

2004· article· en· W2062419781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Randy Showstack

Bibliographic record

VenueEos · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKyoto ProtocolRatificationTreatyConventionParliamentCabinet (room)United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangePolitical scienceInternational tradeLatin AmericansMontreal ProtocolLawClimate changeBusinessGeographyPoliticsMeteorologyOzone layer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Russian cabinet's 30 September endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) likely clears the way for the treaty's ratification by that country's parliament and for its entry into force. The protocol enters into force when not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, including industrialized countries (so‐called “Annex I Parties”) which accounted in total for at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 from that group, officially have agreed to the treaty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEosSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207