Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in our atmosphere have been increasing steadily due to the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil, etc. CO2 being a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) has contributed to global warming resulting in the melting of polar ice caps and glaciers leading to a rise in the sea levels and finally culminating in the submerging of coastal and low-level areas all around the world. Thus, with the intention of controlling global warming and the rising CO2 emissions, the Kyoto Protocol was set up in 2005 to compel the developed countries to lower their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions thus giving rise to the concept of carbon credits, devised to reduce global carbon emission levels. However, the first phase of the sole international agreement to cut GHG emissions came to an end in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol has not been qualified as an absolute success seeing that it has not produced any demonstrable reduction in emission levels, and global temperatures are still rising at an alarming rate. A miscarriage of the treaty can also be sensed through the demeanor of countries like Canada, which pulled back from the treaty in 2011; Japan and Russia, who would not commit themselves beyond 2012 while the United States remains aloof. This study reviews the climate change regime and explores the concept of carbon credits, how carbon trading is occurring presently and also identifies some key issues concerning the same. The reasons for the unsatisfactory results of the Kyoto Protocol and prospects in mitigating climate change have also been discussed here.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.076 | 0.023 |
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".