Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper describes the Canada's Kyoto GHG emissions gap analysis. It begins by reviewing carbon emission sources inventory, and Kyoto's gap. In the year 2003, Canada's GHG emissions were 24 % above 1990 reference level, and the gap between Canada's Kyoto commitment and total inventoried emissions is becoming more and more alarmingly large. In addition, the increases were exacerbated by particular national circumstances, like growth in fossil fuel production for export. It's deducted that the politics up to date implemented are not sufficiently efficient, and some measures like one tonne challenge are welcoming, but can not effectively help the country to meet its Kyoto target. Despite playing a leading role in international environmental problems and in building a consensus among diverging interests, Canada has not worked sufficiently in the direction of Kyoto's Protocol implementation. The understandable conclusion of gap analysis is that, the government will be in the obligation to pay through Climate Fund for Kyoto flexibility mechanisms (international emission credit, clean development mechanism, or joint implementation), consequently making billions dollars go away the country, without effect in Canadian GHG emissions reduction
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".