Transfers, Commitments, and Issue Linkage in International Environmental Negotiations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A large amount of pollutants are discharged from each country into the atmosphere and water systems as a result of human activity. The emissions often affect other countries, as well as the global environment. In economic terms, each polluting country benefits from using the environment as a receptacle of emissions but, at the same time, is also damaged by the resulting environmental deterioration. While the benefit is related to domestic emissions only, the damage is related to both domestic and foreign emissions that negatively affect the environment. Hence a problem of international externalities arises which, in the present institutional setting, can be solved only by voluntary agreements among sovereign countries. Such agreements have been quite common in recent years,1 and they seem to share some features: they are often characterized by cooperative behaviour among the individual countries involved; they usually have only a subgroup of the negotiating countries as signatories (partial cooperation); and they tend to use various forms of transfer, typically to the developing countries, as a key instrument for increasing the number of signatories. There are also recent attempts to link environmental negotiations to negotiations on other economic issues.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.002 |
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".