3. Global Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Setting a new record, the Durban climate conference finished in the early morning of Sunday, 11 December, one-and-a-half days after its scheduled end. The fruit of all the overtime labour was an agreement on a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a mandate to launch negotiations on a new comprehensive climate agreement, and decisions to move forward with near-term climate action on the basis of the Cancun Agreements from the previous year’s conference. This outcome constitutes a major achievement for the European Community (EC) and the most vulnerable countries, the small island developing states (SIDS), which are united in the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and the least developed countries (LDCs), who had pushed for such a negotiating mandate against strong resistance from the United States, India, China, and others. This report lays out the major developments in Durban and assesses the main outcomes. It is structured based on the Bali roadmap for a future climate agreement that was agreed upon in 2007. The Bali roadmap lays out negotiations along two tracks. First, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Countries under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), which was established at the conference in Montreal in 2005, has been negotiating future emission targets for developed countries (listed in Annex I of the UNFCCC and hence called Annex I countries). As the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period expires in 2012, the AWG-KP’s mandate includes establishing new targets for a second commitment period post-2012 as well as associated rules for accounting emissions. Second, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) has also been negotiating commitments for Annex I countries, intending to cover those that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol—that is, the United States. In addition, the AWG-LCA negotiates ‘nationally appropriate mitigation actions’ of developing countries, which are to be supported by Annex I countries with technology, financing, and capacity building. Both the actions and the support are to be ‘measurable, reportable, and verifiable.’ The AWG-LCA also negotiates how such support for developing countries’ mitigation actions may be delivered as well as how developing countries may be supported in adapting to the impacts of climate change.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".