Russia and the Kyoto Protocol: Ratification and Post-Ratification Politics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
following the United States ’ decision not to ratify it. Why did the Russian government – with little popular pressure and little enthusiasm for environmental protection – decide to ratify Kyoto, and what measures will it take to implement the treaty? Proponents of ratification were numerous, consisting mainly of scientists, environmentalists, and business interests, but they were countered by a small number of powerful anti-Kyoto voices in the scientific and political communities who appeared to dominate the debate. In the end these battling interests had little influence on the decision due to the centralized institutional environment in Russia which allows the President to make foreign policy decisions largely single-handedly. President Putin ratified the treaty because Russia would likely experience economic gains rather than losses from Kyoto provisions, gain leverage in other international negotiations, and contribute to an image of itself as a good member of the club of advanced industrialized states. The president delayed ratification in order to clarify evidence about gains versus losses and secure concessions from other Kyoto ratifiers in other international negotiations. Implementation of the treaty is proceeding slowly, in part due to uncertainty during the ratification process, and existing efforts indicate that Russia's implementation strategy will likely be directed more at maximizing profits through treaty mechanisms to modernize industrial sectors than at maximizing emissions reductions. This paper is part of a multi-country comparative project aimed at explaining different governments ’ decisions to ratify or not ratify the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change and
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".