DEVELOPING COUNTRIES AND THE UNFCCC PROCESS: SOME SIMULATIONS FROM AN ARMINGTON EXTENDED CLIMATE MODEL
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report simulation results for alternative multilateral emissions cuts and accompanying policies which could come under renewed reconsideration for the process to follow the Durban UNFCCC negotiations. The model is an Armington type trade model extended to capture climate change. We calibrate the model to alternative BAU damage scenarios following the Stern report and the literature that has followed. We consider different depths, forms, and timeframes for emission reductions by China, India, Russia, Brazil, US, EU, Japan, and a residual row both jointly and block wise. We assume regionally uniform percentage of both climate change and damages by region, which are relaxed later in sensitivity analysis. The welfare impacts of both emission reductions and accompanying measures are computed in Hicksian money metric equivalent form over three alternative potential commitment periods: 2012–2020, 2012–2030, and 2012–2050. Our multiyear multicounty global modeling framework captures the benefit of emission mitigation through preferences incorporating temperature change. Countries are linked not only through shared welfare impacts of global temperature change but also through trade among country subscripted goods. These trade impacts influence net country benefits from alternative emission reduction agreements. We also evaluate the potential impacts of potential accompanying mechanisms including funds/transfers, border adjustments, and tariffs.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it