MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

International Climate Change Law

2016· book-chapter· en· W2583045173 on OpenAlexaff
Cinnamon Piñon Carlarne, Kevin R. Gray, Richard G. Tarasofsky

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsGlobal Affairs CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeKyoto ProtocolScope (computer science)Climate changeInternational communityPolitical scienceConventionInternational lawEnvironmental lawLaw and economicsLawSociologyComputer sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This introductory chapter outlines the scope and development of international climate change law which addresses the unique nature of climate change and its complexities. The twentieth century saw the international community identifying and recognizing climate change as a global problem. Drawing from the basic tenets of international environmental law, the United Nations established two international legal frameworks that form the backbone of the international climate change regime—the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC, as a framework instrument, sets the parameters for global discourse and provides an essential forum for dialogue and decision-making on climate change matters. It is extended and complimented by the Kyoto Protocol, which sets out legally binding emission reduction obligations for developed country parties, provides for a series of market-based mitigation tools, and generally adds further contour to the legal framework established under the UNFCCC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.016

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.101 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207