Two Level Games and the Future of the Climate Regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The summer of 1988 holds a particularly prominent place in the history of global climate change policy. Heat waves, drought, and forest fires in North America, the first billiondollar hurricane in the Caribbean, and the breakage of a massive chunk of ice off the coast of Antarctica that year were viewed by many as a preview of the impacts of global warming. US presidential candidate George Bush (Sr.) promised that if elected, he would combat the greenhouse effect with “the White House Effect”. Scientists also weighed in, including a famous Senate testimony by NASA climate modeler James Hansen who claimed he was “99% certain” that the anomalous weather in the US was not a chance event, and that it was time to stop “waffling” around scientific uncertainty. Meanwhile the first elements of an international climate treaty began to emerge at the Toronto Conference of the Atmosphere that was hosted by the Canadian government in June 1988. Many key ideas that were introduced at Toronto – the need for industrialized countries to accept historical responsibility and take the first steps at reducing greenhouse emissions, a call for 20% cuts in industrialized country carbon dioxide emissions from 1988 levels by 2005, and the establishment of an international funding mechanism to assist developing countries in enacting any future emissions cuts – have all cast a long shadow on subsequent intergovernmental negotiations. In that same summer of 1988, far removed from the growing policy interest in global warming, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam published a theoretical essay entitled “Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games” (International Organization, 1988). In this paper Putnam proposed a simple but elegant argument:
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".