MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182802418 · doi:10.1579/0044-7447-31.1.30

Constraints to Implementing International Agreements: The Case of the Montreal Protocol in Botswana

2002· article· en· W2182802418 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aston C. Chipanshi

Bibliographic record

VenueAMBIO · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal ProtocolDispose patternProtocol (science)Kyoto ProtocolBusinessEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceOzone layerEconomicsGeographyGreenhouse gasMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the difficulties surrounding effective implementation of the Montreal Protocol in Botswana and provides a general understanding of how best we might advise policy makers when implementing international agreements in the developing world. A questionnaire survey administered to both the formal and informal users of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODSs) revealed that disseminated information on ODSs has little effect on choices that users make about refrigerant gases and this information is skewed in favor of the conventional users of ODSs. As a result, annual statistics of ODS use are probably underestimated. Difficulties exist in changing from old to new technologies in the short term due to high costs associated with the change over. The infrastructure to recover gases and to dispose of unusable hardware is absent or inadequate. Solutions to these difficulties include a comprehensive policy that caters for all users of ODSs and the integration of economic and environmental aspirations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAMBIOSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207