Neglected Sovereignty: Filling Canada's Climate Change Gap with Unilateral Measures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the over two decades since the UNFCCC entered into force, the need to take action on climate change has become much more urgent. Despite the UNFCCC, its companion Kyoto Protocol, the Copenhagen Accord, the Cancun Agreement and the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, global GHG emissions have continued to rise. According to the IPCC’s Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report, in order to have a “likely” chance of maintaining warming below 28C over pre-industrial temperatures, global GHG emissions need to drop between 40-70% by 2050 compared to 2010 and to near zero or below by 2100. While some developed nations, most notably those within the European Union, have taken the climate change challenge seriously, others such as Canada have lagged well behind. As the science becomes clearer, and significant and irreversible changes are increasingly locked into the climate system, this paper argues that if Canada continues to neglect its sovereign responsibility to put in place policies and measures to mitigate GHG emissions other countries may well have the legal right to use unilateral measures to fill the gap.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".