Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global warming caused by increased release of large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere create global awareness of the environment is an issue that can threaten the life of the biosphere. Therefore, the countries concerned will start warming the environment by triggering the 1998 Kyoto Protocol aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. Both developed and developing countries to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol diimlementasikan in the first period beginning in 2008- 2012. In 2011, the Durban COP Canada decided to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. Canada s pullout of the Kyoto Protocol is an unexpected decision. This is because Canada is a country that has long been regarded as one of the global leaders in international climate cooperation. Canada is one country that decided to ratify this treaty in 2002. To describe the factors that background the withdrawal of Canada in the Kyoto Protocol. The author takes the background external factors and domestic factors that affect Canada s decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. These results indicate that the high cost of compliance and the changing information of the international system makes Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. In addition to domestic factors that also affect Canadian federalism is that the provincial government to press Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 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".