Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article assesses continuing international efforts to establish an international regime to limit global climate change based on the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. It is highly unlikely that enough states will ratify the protocol for it to enter into force. Even if it does come into force, few of the developed countries are positioned to comply with their commitments to reduce or limit emissions of greenhouse gases by the target years 2008 to 2012. Furthermore, the Kyoto-man-dated reductions will at best be a first step toward the emission reductions needed to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Among the reasons for the failure of the Kyoto process are the indeterminancy of the science of climate change, the complexity of the Kyoto Protocol's flexibility mechanisms, the tendency for differentiated responsibilities to encourage self-serving negotiating strategies, and the stalemate between the North and South. The prospects for reviving and energizing the Kyoto process are dim in the wake of the collapse of the climate change talks at COP6 in The Hague in November 2000 and the new Bush administration in Washington.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".