Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international climate regime, primarily designed to limit the emissions of pollutants causing global warming, has failed.Why has international cooperation to combat global warming been so difficult, and what factors must change to improve the situationassuming it is even possible?Using Mancur Olson's classical theory of collective action, this article endeavors to explain the failure of the climate regime.Other international environmental agreements and the associated regimes, such as the Mediterranean Action Plan and the Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion, demonstrate that collective action to address international environmental problems is possible.Both agreements contain the ingredients that classical theory suggests are necessary to achieve collective action.But the flipside of collective action theory-that collective action in larger groups is very difficult or unlikelycan also apply to international agreements and action on climate change.Despite the Mediterranean and Montreal successes, relatively speaking, and in spite of so much effort over two decades to create an effective climate regime, it is by no means apparent that the elements for success will exist for the foreseeable future.We should expect a continued muddling along that may, at best, reduce slightly-but not reverse-global warming at some point in the relatively distant future.Climate change is with us to stay.It is now patently clear that the world is facing a growing set of environmental dangers.The greatest among them is probably climate change -changes to Earth's climate system, manifested in events such as drought, floods, sea-level rise, major temperature rises in some regions (e.g., the Artic) and potentially precipitous falls in others (e.g., Europe), extinction of species, and spread of pests (to give but a sampling of the myriad *
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".