A Regime Paralyzed: An Exploration of Current Climate Politics and the Urgent Need for Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The science on climate change is in: legitimate scientists have been unable to provide serious scientific evidence that casts doubt on the fact that anthropogenic, that is, human-caused climate change is occurring. Less clear are the speed of climate change and the extent of damages to environmental and human health if emissions from fossil fuels continue unabated. The most recent international conference on the environment, namely the 2013 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) or Conference of the Parties (COP) 19, was characterized by bitter intergovernmental negotiations and non-committal by major emitters to watered-down agreements. COP 19 exemplifies the inadequacies inherent in the current international system, which render it incapable of effectively addressing climate change; in other words, the international community remains unable to come to an agreement or agreements that mitigate the effects of climate change now, while establishing adaptation mechanisms for the future as the effects of climate change become increasingly pronounced. The efficacy of the current regime is impeded not only by its singular, non-binding approach to emissions reduction, but also by the ability of a small number of major emitters’ ability to hinder agreements. In order to make rising to the challenge of the global climate crisis politically feasible, the international climate regime must abandon the current emissions cap approach and adopt an incremental approach to negotiations, crafting sector-specific agreements that aim to gradually reduce emissions in a viable and equitable manner.
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 | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".