The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate: A Retreat from the Principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate ("APP") was formed in July 2005 by China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and the United States. Canada was accepted as the seventh partner nation of the APP in October 2007. The APP is a soft-law technology cooperation agreement on climate change that contains no international targets for greenhouse gas mitigation or formal differentiation in responsibility between developed and developing nations. The APP nations claim the partnership is consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ("UNFCCC"). This article analyzes the founding documents and institutional structure of the APP to determine whether it is consistent with the key UNFCCC principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" ("CBDR"). It is found that the APP fails to support important retributive and needs-based justice principles that are at the heart of the UNFCCC conception of CBDR. In weakening support for these justice principles the APP also fails to support the intra-generational equity aspects of sustainable development. The claims of consistency between the APP and the UNFCCC are therefore not justified.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it