Potential impacts of the Montreal Protocol Kigali Amendment to the choice of refrigerant alternatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper first gives a description of the "Kigali Amendment" established HFC phase-down as decided by the Montreal Protocol parties in Kigali, Rwanda, October 2016.Baselines, freeze dates, schedules for the reductions of HFC consumption for both developing and developed country groups, as well as the 17 HFCs that are now included in the Montreal Protocol are summarized.The list of alternatives for HCFC-22 including high-GWP HFC replacements is given, and considerations regarding the choice of refrigerant, in both low-GWP synthetic and "natural" refrigerant alternatives, are presented.The low-GWP refrigerant flammability issue and the performance of equipment at high ambient temperature are described.It is discussed whether the potential impacts of the Kigali Amendment will be reinforcing the momentum of applications using low-GWP refrigerants and the innovation for sustainable RACHP technologies
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 | 0.017 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".