Bibliographic record
Abstract
Author observed climate change, as revealed in the 4th report recently published by Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IGPCC) from Paris, to be a grave warning which calls for global attention. He recommends a reasonable time table for world leaders to begin negotiations to decide strategy on actions after 2012 when current Kyoto Protocol expires. Kyoto Protocol, from which China and India are excluded, stipulates bringing down green house gas by 5.2% of 1990 level within 2012. USA, Canada and Australia are not signatories on the pretext of their economies getting affected. Author recommends by 2007 world communities including USA and China, two great emitters, should meet in 2008 for deciding basic principles by 2009 and to strike a conclusive action plan by 2010 which has to be ratified before 2012, in order that course of actions beyond Kyoto protocol are detailed out in time. UK as pioneer and ahead of others has drafted green law to cut down carbon emission by 60% within 2050 and create an independent authority to monitor and check annual progress. UK's endeavor is prompted by Mr. Nicholas Stern's report in 2006 on dangers of climate change. In this context, European Commission, has decided to cut down emission by 20% by 2020 and at the same time generate renewable energy to constitute 20% total capacity by that time. Japan has decided to conserve energy to the extent of 20% which will result in reducing emission from fossil fuels. Despite high cost, Japan is going ahead of all countries in adding solar power. China has enacted Renewable Energy Law with targets fixed for raising renewable energy capacity. USA, not bound by Kyoto Protocol, nevertheless, is promoting renewable energy with a goal of 25% generation by 2025.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".