Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores the potential contribution of the development of a code of conduct to serve as a near‐term governance instrument to guide the responsible conduct of geoengineering research. This idea is grounded in the observation that geoengineering research and development processes are emerging within a polycentric governance landscape. A key feature of such systems is the recognition of an overarching system of rules which, inter alia, set out the key objectives to be achieved. To this end, the article presents the results of a multi‐year, transdisciplinary study that seeks to identify and describe salient legal concepts, norms, and processes relevant to the geoengineering research governance, and discusses how the interpretation and application of these may be promoted through the adoption of a flexible, voluntary instrument promulgated by various state and non‐state actors operating at different levels.
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 | 0.187 | 0.244 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".