Bibliographic record
Abstract
The meeting of the parties (MOP) to the Montreal Protocol called for the Methyl Bromide (MB) phase-out in 1992. In 1997, a global phase-out schedule of this chemical was established by the MOP: Article 5 countries are required to freeze consumption and production of MB by 2002, reduce its use by 20% in 2005 and complete total phase-out by 2015. Non-Article 5 countries had to phase-out MB by 2005. However, non-article 5 countries were allowed by the parties to present Critical Use Nominations (CUNs). The exemption application process is extremely rigorous. After analysis of the CUNs, MBTOC makes recommendations on the applications to the Parties to the Protocol. The Parties then determine whether or not to approve each application. The two countries presenting CUNs every year for dates' disinfestation are the US (California) and Israel. Consumption of MB for controlled uses has significantly decreased both in developed and developing countries. In A5 countries, phase-out has been achieved to a large extent through investment projects funded by the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol through its implementing agencies and some bilateral agreements. UNIDO designed a project proposal to address the issue of alternatives to MB for the palm date sector. The objective of the project is to demonstrate whether alternatives to MB for the treatment of high moisture dates are technically and economically available in Algeria and Tunisia. UNEP and UNEP/ROWA have organised many activities in North Africa and in the Middle East to discuss and implement alternatives to MB for dates' disinfestation.
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 | 0.035 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.012 |
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".