Study on Financing the Destruction of Unwanted Ozone-Depleting Substances through the Voluntary Carbon Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report was prepared by Investment \n Climate Facility (ICF) international with direction from \n World Bank's Montreal protocol unit and the project \n team. While Montreal protocol has achieved remarkable \n success in reducing production and consumption of ozone \n depleting substances (ODS) worldwide, a significant amount \n of ODS still remains in equipments, products, and \n stockpiles. This report finds that significant opportunity \n exists for destroying ODS through the voluntary carbon \n market. The high global warming potential (GWP) of ODS means \n that their destruction has the ability to generate \n significant volumes of carbon credits, which could then be \n sold in the voluntary carbon market. Using the voluntary \n market is likely a win-win opportunity; incentives are \n created for the recovery and destruction of ODS through the \n carbon credits that can be earned, and the buyers pay for \n real and verifiable emission reductions from the destruction \n of ODS that would have otherwise been emitted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".