Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keywords Stratospheric ozone layer; ozone-depleting substances; Vienna Convention; Montreal Protocol; lessons; awareness; information; education and training; stakeholders; assessment panels; incremental costs; capacity development; country programme; new technologies; technology transfer; assessment of technologies; project preparation and implementation; policy instruments Abstarct The international agreements to protect the ozone layer - the Vienna Convention of 1985 and the Montreal Protocol of 1987, have a near universal participation and have been successful. Developing countries have implemented these agreements for the past 14 years benefiting the global environment but without adverse effects on their economic development. The countries can apply the lessons from the ozone agreements to deal with the climate change agreements. The principal lessons are: creation of public awareness; involvement of all the stakeholders in negotiation and implementation of the agreements; active participation in the scientific and technological panels related to the agreements; understanding the new concepts such as incremental costs; capacity-building for assessment of national status, impacts, and new technologies, technology transfer and project preparation and implementation and understanding, choosing and implementing appropriate policy instruments. INTRODUCTION The ozone agreements – the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985) and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987) – have the objective of protection of the stratospheric ozone layer by phasing out the emissions of man-made ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".