The World Heritage Convention and Climate Change: The Case for a Climate-Change Mitigation Strategy beyond the Kyoto Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 2004 and 2006, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) from several countries submitted four petitions and a report (collectively, the Petitions) to the World Heritage Committee to list certain World Heritage sites on the “List of World Heritage in Danger” (the “in danger” list) because of the deterioration these sites have endured as a result of climate change. These sites include Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal, Huascarán National Park in Peru, the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park in the United States and Canada, and Belize's Barrier Reef Reserve System, which suffer from two of the most dramatic effects of climate change on natural areas – coral bleaching and glacial ice loss. The Petitions argue that pursuant to their obligations under the World Heritage Convention (WHC), State Parties must develop a mitigation strategy that prevents anthropogenic interference with the climate system sufficient to halt further deterioration of World Heritage sites threatened by climate change. At the heart of the Petitions, then, is a call for all State Parties to the WHC to make drastic cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".