Bibliographic record
Abstract
To carry out the Montreal Protocol, South Korea has completely prohibited the use of CFC which is a main refrigerant since 2010, and the use of HCFC is planned to be prohibited from 2040. Therefore, it is expected that dependency on HFC as an alternate substance of HCFC will be increased. Since HFC which is one of main substances causing global warming phenomenon may have a harmful influence on climate change, legal and institutional measures for totally managing HCFC and HFC are required. Therefore, in this study, the refrigerant management systems in EU, USA and Japan have been considered in three aspects, such as the legal system for refrigerant management, the management and regulation limits for products using refrigerant, and the reduction policies and trends, centering on HCFC and HFC which are international regulation and reduction objects. EU environmental law regulates over the entire process for ozone depletion substances, such as production, import, export, use, market release, recovery, landfill and decomposition thereof. The united states regulates forming agents, labeling agents or the like, pursuant to Article 608 of the Federal Clean Air Act (air conditioning and automobiles), and in the case of the state of California, PFC and SF6 including HFC are defined as high GWP, and separately classified and managed. Unlike EU and USA, Japan is characterized by applying the Freon recovery and decomposition law for totally managing the Freon-based gas such as CFC, HCFC and HFC, and regulations on the refrigerant recovery and decomposition for each product are also specified in separate law related to the recovery of End-Of-Life (EOL) home appliances and vehicles.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.111 | 0.078 |
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".