Bibliographic record
Abstract
COP21, COP22, COP23, COP24... C’est devenu, depuis presque un quart de siècle maintenant, une habitude. Chaque année, vers le début du mois de décembre, se tient une conférence des Nations Unies sur le climat : la « COP ». Ces conférences se suivent, mais les émissions de GES, elles, continuent de croître et la crise climatique semble toujours aussi loin d’être endiguée. Alors, à quoi ces COP peuvent-elles bien servir ? À partir de cette question, cette contribution propose un regard critique sur le fonctionnement de ces conférences et le rôle qu’elles jouent dans la gouvernance internationale du climat. Dans cette perspective, cet article s’attache notamment à présenter les fondements juridiques sur lesquelles les COP reposent, les règles de procédure relatives à la prise de décision, les sujets abordés par les États lors de ces rencontres et l’utilité – mais aussi les limites – de ces grands rendez-vous annuels de la diplomatie climatique.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.003 |
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".