MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3125395975

Multilateral Environmental Agreements up to 2050: Are They Sustainable Enough?

2011· preprint· en· W3125395975 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christoph Jeßberger

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2011
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRatificationKyoto ProtocolSustainable developmentUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeMontreal ProtocolInternational tradeNatural resource economicsKuznets curveClimate changeEnvironmental scienceBusinessInternational economicsEconomicsGeographyEconomic growthPolitical scienceMeteorologyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, reducing CO2 emissions is a global target which nearly all countries in the world prioritize. Some countries have ratified up to 30 multilateral environmental agreements regarding the atmosphere up to 2006. This number has been surging since 1989 after the ratification of the Montreal Protocol. Following the findings of the inverted U-shaped Environmental Kuznets Curve and applying a spline model, I can show the beneficial impact of the rising number of multilateral environmental agreements on the forecasts of CO2 emissions up to 2050. My results indicate that the number of atmosphere-related multilateral environmental agreements generates good will among global cooperation efforts towards reducing CO2 emissions and therefore provides a good basis for effective programs to stop climate change.

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)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicClimate Change Policy and Economics→French-language works237,207→