KEBIJAKAN LUAR NEGERI KANADA KELUAR DARI PROTOKOL KYOTO TAHUN 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foreign Policy Out Canadian of the Kyoto Protocol in 2011. This research aims to explain factors of Canada withdrawal policy toward Kyoto Protocol in 2011 under Stephen Harper. This research uses Foreign Policy Theories by James N. Rossenau, and applies qualitative research method. The Research shaw that Canada withdrawal policy toward Kyoto Protocol in 2011 is affected by five factor. First, Harper’s views on Kyoto Protocol. Second, the ideology of conservative party which was the winning and most dominated party in Canada’s parliament. Third, the dynamics of Canada’s federal government and provincial government relations that has some problem in jurisprudence matters. Forth, overall domestics condition of Canada’s environment and its national interests. And the final factor, international systems which shows some inconsistencies of big power states on Kyoto Protocol. The most dominant factor is Harper’s views on Kyoto Protocol and the ideology of conservative party.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.057 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".