MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4243009493 · doi:10.6027/tn2005-578

Halon Critical Uses and Alternatives

2005· book· en· W4243009493 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTemaNord · 2005
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Halons are the substances which are most harmful to the ozone layer, their potential to destroy ozone being three to ten times higher than that of CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons). Under the Montreal Protocol, halon production in the developed countries was banned from 1st. January 1994, since technically and economically feasible alternatives for the majority of uses of halons were available. EU Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 on substances that deplete the ozone layer controlled marketing and use of halons (1211, 1301 and 2402). Exceptions were made for a list of uses of halons in areas defined in annex 7 as critical uses. This report contains information on current areas of use of halon in the Nordic countries, Denmark, the Faeroe Islands, Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. The information was gathered by using contacts in the fire, security and defence fields, together with communications by mail and e-mail to other contacts and potential contacts as well as extensive Internet searching.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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