MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W343289359

Let Them Eat Carbon: The End of the Kyoto Protocol

2012· article· en· W343289359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aiten J. Musaeva McPherson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKyoto ProtocolGreenhouse gasCommitProtocol (science)European unionInternational tradeClean Development MechanismMontreal ProtocolInternational communityJoint ImplementationCarbon offsetDeveloping countryInternational economicsNatural resource economicsBusinessEconomicsPolitical scienceEconomic growthComputer scienceLawChemistryMedicineEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

international community has taken note of the greenhouse gas problem and has undertaken several different approaches to address the issue. The Kyoto Protocol is one such approach. The Protocol is an international agreement that seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. The Protocol attempts to reduce emissions by setting binding emission targets for its Annex I Member States, composed of thirty-seven developed countries and the European Union. The Kyoto Protocol holds these countries to binding commitments by requiring them to reduce their greenhouse emissions by an average of 5% against 1990 levels, over the period of 2008–2012.16 The Protocol also encourages, but does not commit,non-Annex I countries, composed of mainly developing nations, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.124 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Georgia Journal of International and Comparative LawSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207