Kyoto, Doha et après : enjeux autour des négociations de l’après-Kyoto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À la suite des conférences sur le climat de Copenhague et Durban, la politique climatique mondiale se trouve à la croisée des chemins. D’un côté, le renouvellement du protocole de Kyoto après la fin de la première période d’engagement en 2012 est incertain. De l’autre côté, un nouveau traité climatique rassemblant l’ensemble des États du monde doit être négocié d’ici 2015 pour entrer en vigueur en 2020. La répartition de ces cibles entre les différents groupes de pays – pays industrialisés, pays en voie de développement, pays en transition, relève de considérations éthiques, pragmatiques et politiques. Ultimement, tous les pays devront être prêts à des compromis, si l’objectif de stabilisation du climat énoncé à Copenhague doit être respecté. Cependant, les aspects de justice climatique ne pourront pas être laissés de côté.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".