MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096883801

Summary of the Bonn Climate Change Conference: 3-14 June 2013

2013· article· en· W2096883801 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonathan C. Allan, B. Antonich, E. Kosolapova, Mari Luomi, A. Schulz

Bibliographic record

VenueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
Topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesamt für UmweltBundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und ReaktorsicherheitMinistry of EnvironmentBundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und VerbraucherschutzNew Zealand Foreign Affairs and TradeEuropean CommissionInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsClimate changeHistoryMeteorologyGeographyGeologyOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protocol (CMP 1) decided to establish the Ad Hoc Working Group on Annex I Parties' Further Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) in accordance with Protocol Article 3.9, which mandated consideration of Annex I parties' further commitments at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period.COP 11 created a process to consider long-term cooperation under the Convention through a series of four workshops known as "the Convention Dialogue."In December 2007, COP 13 and CMP 3 in Bali, Indonesia, resulted in agreement on the Bali Roadmap on long-term issues.COP 13 adopted the Bali Action Plan (BAP) and established the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) with a mandate to focus on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and a shared vision for long-term cooperative action.Negotiations on Annex I parties' further commitments continued under the AWG-KP.The deadline for concluding the two-track negotiations was Copenhagen in 2009. COPENHAGEN:The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, took place in December 2009.The highprofile event was marked by disputes over transparency and process.During the high-level segment, informal negotiations took place in a group consisting of major economies and representatives of regional and other negotiating groups.Late in the evening of 18 December, these talks resulted in a political agreement, the "Copenhagen Accord," which was then presented to the COP plenary for adoption.After 13 hours of debate, delegates ultimately agreed to "take note" of the Copenhagen Accord.In 2010, over 140 countries indicated support for the Accord.More than 80 countries also provided information on their national mitigation targets or actions.Parties also extended the mandates of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP until COP 16 and CMP 6 in 2010.CANCUN: The UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, took place in December 2010, where parties finalized the Cancun Agreements.Under the Convention track, Decision 1/CP.16 recognized the need for deep cuts in global emissions in order to limit the global average temperature rise to 2C above pre-industrial levels.Parties agreed to consider strengthening the global long-term goal during a Review by 2015, including in relation to a proposed 1.5C target.Decision 1/CP.16 also addressed other aspects of mitigation, such as: measuring, reporting and verification (MRV); and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+).The Cancun Agreements also established several new institutions and processes, including the Cancun Adaptation Framework, the Adaptation Committee, and the Technology Mechanism, which includes the Technology Executive Committee and the Climate Technology Centre and Network.The Green Climate Fund (GCF) was created and designated as an operating entity of the Convention's financial mechanism.Under the Protocol track, the CMP urged Annex I parties to raise the level of ambition towards achieving aggregate emission reductions, and adopted Decision 2/CMP.6 on land use, land-

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.569
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam)Same topicdemographic modeling and climate adaptationFrench-language works237,207