L’Articulation Des Approches Universelle Et Régionale En Matière De Protection Du Climat (The Articulation of Universal and Regional Climate Policies)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parce que le climat constitue un bien public mondial, les strategies mises en place par les Etats pour le preserver se sont historiquement inscrites dans une perspective universelle, comme l'illustrent la Convention des Nations Unies sur le climat et du Protocole de Kyoto. Pourtant, la gouvernance du climat est aujourd'hui fragmentee. A cote de la cooperation universelle, se developpent des initiatives de cooperation regionale (politiques climatiques de l’Union Europeenne; Partenariat Asie-Pacifique pour le developpement propre et le climat; Western Climate Iniative). Or, la relation entre ces deux niveaux de cooperation n'est actuellement regie par aucune regle du droit international. Dans ce contexte, cette recherche vise a analyser la facon dont s'articulent les approches universelle et regionale en matiere de protection du climat ainsi que les tensions juridiques et politiques qui en decoulent. Because climate is a global public good, international strategies to tackle global warming were originally implemented in a universal perspective, as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol demonstrate. Over the years, climate governance has however become increasingly fragmented due to the emergence of regional climate policies (European union, Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, Western Climate Initiative). As there is no rule to define how the universal and regional climate policies should be coordinated, this paper aims at analyzing the current articulation of these two sets of climate policies.
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 | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".