Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Kyoto Protocol will have little effect upon atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Even so, Kyoto and the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change could have established a path to solving the climate change problem. Unfortunately, they do not. Instead, they contain features that, if applied to future international environmental agreements, will make resolution of global environmental problems more difficult: Emission targets are expressed in terms of reductions, not limits; each party has a different target, in accordance with its differentiated responsibilities; the more pollution a country has produced in the past, the more lenient are its obligations; economic development is encouraged to the detriment of the global atmosphere; the objective is not the prevention of climate change, but its management; progress on climate change is proclaimed but not achieved. Kyoto is the latest in a series of international environmental first steps that are politically appealing but inadequate in form as well as substance.
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 | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
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".