MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158311899 · doi:10.7202/039616ar

Le principe des responsabilités communes mais différenciées à Rio, Kyoto et Copenhague

2010· article· fr· W2158311899 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sophie Lavallée

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change, Adaptation, Migration
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans la Déclaration de Stockholm, la communauté internationale reconnaissait en 1972 qu’il fallait résoudre l’apparente contradiction entre la protection de l’environnement et le développement économique des pays pauvres. Expressément formulé en 1992, dans la Déclaration de Rio, le principe des responsabilités communes mais différenciées est devenu la pièce maîtresse du Protocole de Kyoto, que le Sénat américain a refusé de ratifier. Au cours des négociations relatives aux engagements post-Kyoto, des divergences sur la mise en oeuvre de ce principe ont conduit à une impasse. L’Accord de Copenhague permettra-t-il à la communauté internationale d’assumer sa responsabilité de protéger le climat, dans l’intérêt commun de l’humanité ?

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicClimate Change, Adaptation, MigrationFrench-language works237,207