Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Offers the first comprehensive history of international efforts to protect the ozone layer by abandoning the use of chlorofluorohydrocarbons (CFCs), and underlines that this is the greatest success yet achieved in managing human impacts on the global environment. The arguments advanced to explain how this success was achieved are theoretically novel and of great significance for the management of other global problems, particularly global climate change. An account is provided of ozone‐depletion issues from the first attempts to develop international action in the 1970s to the mature functioning of the present international ozone protection regime. Examines the parallel developments of politics and negotiations, scientific understanding and controversy, technological progress, and industry strategy that shaped the issue's development and its effective management. Important new insights are offered into how the interactions among these domains influenced the formation and adaptation of the ozone protection regime. In addressing the initial formation of the regime, the book argues that authoritative scientific assessments were crucial in constraining policy debates, and shaping negotiated agreements. Assessments gave scientific claims an ability to change policy actors’ behaviour that the claims themselves, however well known and verified, lacked. Concerning subsequent adaptation of the regime, the book identifies a series of feedbacks between the periodic revision of chemical controls and the strategic responses of affected industries, which drove rapid application of new approaches to reduce ozone‐depicting chemicals. These feedbacks, promoted by the regime's novel technology assessment process, allowed worldwide use of the CFCs to decline further and faster than even the boldest predictions — by nearly 95%t within ten years.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".