Brazil in the context of global governance politics and climate change, 1989-2003
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The climate regime is the more comprehensive and ambitious of all environmental regimes, linking in a very direct way one the most crucial economic issue, the use of energy and energy efficiency with one of the stronger environmental threaten. For this reason the climate regime is one of the most important examples of the impasses of building up some limited global governance in a unipolar anarchic world. The paper discusses the evolution of the Brazilian standing in its relation with the world during the last decade: moving from a more nationalist toward a more liberal and globalist standing in many issues related to the governance of the world. Also, the paper analyses the evolution of the Brazilian stance in the negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol: strong defense of the principle of common/differentiated responsibility, proposal of Clean Development Fund, alliance with USA for transforming the Clean Development Fund in the Clean Development Mechanism, moving from opposition to supporting of flexibility mechanisms, making bridge between developed and developing countries in many negotiations, supporting the European Union in the opposition to the inclusion of carbon sinks, opposition to emergent countries voluntary commitments, opposition to the eligibility of primary forest protection for the Clean Development Mechanism, strong criticism of the withdraw of USA in March 2001, leading role among developing countries in supporting the reaching of a final agreement in Bonn (July 2001) and Marrakech (November 2001), and leading role in trying to achieve the ratification of the Protocol in 2002. Finally the paper shows how the reluctance of Russia to ratify the Protocol during 2003 was producing a combination of despair and disengagement in the Lula administration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".