MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206196846 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-948327/v1

Achieving Paris climate goals calls for increasing ambition of the Kigali Amendment

2021· preprint· en· W3206196846 on OpenAlex
Pallav Purohit, Nathan Borgford‐Parnell, Zbigniew Klimont, Lena Höglund-Isaksson

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicRegional resilience and development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmendmentPolitical scienceFirst amendmentEnvironmental scienceLawLaw and economicsEconomicsSupreme court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We assess that full global compliance with the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol will not provide emission reductions consistent with the 1.5 o C target of the Paris Agreement. Following the Montreal Protocol’s start-and-strengthen approach to refrigerant management, fast-tracking hydrofluorocarbon phase-down under the Kigali Amendment would result in additional reductions vital for achieving the Paris climate goals. This would also increase chances of staying below 1.5 o C additional warming throughout this century.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.239 · 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