Opportunities and Limits of Participation – CDM Criticism in the UN Climate Change Negotiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the political struggle for finding a solution for the global climate crisis participation of civil society voices is explicitly invited. Accordingly, civil society – and in particular environmental non- governmental organisations (ENGOs) – has contributed to this process from its beginnings. The present chapter will consider how this participation operates in an area which is controversial to differing degrees both within and outwith the UN climate change negotiations: the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).To begin, the first section shall briefly illustrate the development of UN climate change politics and introduce the CDM concept. Next, the main streams of criticism of the trade with emission certificates and particularly the CDM will be presented, whereby the concept of ‘additionality’ of emission certificates will receive particular attention. Finally, opportunities and limits of the participation of ENGOs in the climate change negotiations will be discussed using the example of CDM criticism.
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 | 0.060 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".