International activities to reduce pollution impacts at the regional scale.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> At the regional scale there has been much effort made to introduce international agreements on pollution control over the last two decades. In Europe in the 1980s, much of the early focus was upon simple flat rate controls based upon emission limits or technology. Some countries adopted the best available technology or the precautionary principle for their emission controls. In the 1990s, the move towards effects-based approaches have made use of the development of critical loads maps and our knowledge of long-range atmospheric transport resulting from models and measurements at monitoring sites. An effects-based sulfur protocol for the UN ECE Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution is now being followed by a multi-pollutant, multi-effect protocol which will address effects of sulfur, nitrogen and ozone. This will be supported by European Community strategies on acidification and ozone effects (which will also consider the effects of excess nutrient nitrogen) and emission ceilings directives. In North America bilateral agreements have been used to reduce sulfur emissions and their impacts internationally; Canada has indicated that further action will be needed in the future to address outstanding acidification problems. In general, emissions have fallen in line with protocol obligations across Europe, while similar changes have taken place in North America. There are differences for many individual countries, however, with some achieving more while others, usually those who are not parties to particular protocols, much less. Overall, sulfur emissions will probably be around 20% of their maximum in the mid-1980s by 2010: this has benefits both internationally but also more locally where individual sources often have significant impacts on ecosystems. Improvements in sulfur emissions are placing more emphasis on the need to control nitrogen pollutant emissions. In addition, future consideration will need to be taken of the large costs associated with high levels of protection and whether that protection is justifiable or attainable; for this, better information on benefits will be needed.
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) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".