Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amid political turbulence in Iceland, including the resignation of the prime minister, an early election, and a relatively difficult formation of a government, there have been some developments in environmental matters. The effects of growing tourism in Iceland, climate issues, and the Arctic were at the forefront of developments in the year 2016. In April, the Icelandic Environmental Agency announced that the reporting and review process for the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was complete and that Iceland had fulfilled its commitments for the period of 2008–12. While the collective goal for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions under the protocol was 5 percent, Iceland’s commitment was not to increase emissions above 10 percent compared with 1990 levels. Iceland also availed itself of the provisions of Decision 14/CP.7, allowing Iceland to report on the industrial processing of carbon dioxide emissions separately and not to include them in national totals (further information on the report can be found at < http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/reporting/true-up_period_reports_under_the_kyoto_protocol/items/9049.php>). Iceland remains committed to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and submitted its intended nationally determined contribution to the UNFCCC on 30 June 2015, where it aims to be part of a collective delivery by European countries to reach a target of 40 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".