A report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and its implications for tourism: why we will always have Paris
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
Sustained international diplomatic efforts culminated in the signing of the Paris Climate Agreement by 196 countries in December 2015. This paper provides an overview of the key provisions of the agreement that are most relevant to the tourism sector: much strengthened and world-wide participation in greenhouse gas emission reduction ambitions, an enduring framework for increased ambitions over time, improved transparency in emissions reporting and a greater emphasis on climate risk management through adaptation. The declared carbon emission reduction ambitions of the tourism sector and international aviation are found to be broadly compatible with those of the Paris Agreement, however, claims of reduced emission intensity in the tourism sector since 2005 and a roadmap by which emission reduction ambitions for 2020 and 2035 might realistically be achieved both remain equivocal. The need for international tourism leadership to improve sectoral scale emission monitoring capacity to meet the increasing requirements for transparency, convene an assessment of risks from climate change and climate policy, foster greater collaboration on destination climate resilience and accelerate technological, policy and social innovation to put tourism firmly on a pathway to the low-carbon economy are all emphasized, as is the need for dialogue between tourism and tourism researchers.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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