Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper is devoted to the development of international legal regulation in the field of combating climate change. Over the years, states, in the face of scientific uncertainty, have been trying to find ways to keep global warming at 1.5 °C by establishing international commitments of various configurations.When cooperating in the fight against climate change, additional substantive discussions arise, related, for example, to the implementation of international trade measures or the provision of human rights. However, the main direction remains the one covered by the context of sustainable development, ESG principles for business, government and society, strategies for energy policies of states, cooperation in adaptation and assistance to developing countries.Approaches to the international legal regulation of cooperation in the field of combating climate change began to form when the international community started to pay much attention to the international legal protection of atmospheric air and the protection of the ozone layer. As early as the preamble to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the emphasis was placed on the potential climate impact of ozone-depleting substance emissions.The international legal regime established by the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, in fact, outlined guidelines for finding optimal forms of cooperation, taking into account changes not only in the state of the environment, but also in the economic agenda. The Conference of the Parties has been identified as the key institutional platform for cooperation. Currently in conjunction with the 1992 Framework Convention and the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement the Conference of the Parties provides the conditions for their implementation.
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 | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".