Legal protection of the Earth’s ozone layer: international and national aspects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article substantiates the importance of protecting the ozone layer at the international level, since the efforts of individual States to limit the turnover of ozone-depleting substances at the national level are insufficient. The international legal regulation in this area is investigated, the need for the protection of the ozone layer at the international level is justified. In order to implement the norms of international law, it is also necessary to adopt appropriate legislation at the national level, in connection with which the article analyzes the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of ozone layer protection, conclusions are drawn on the topic of the study. The purpose of the study is to analyze the international legal regime for the protection of the ozone layer, as well as to establish the adoption and operation of international legal acts for the protection of the ozone layer. The protection of the ozone layer is an important area of climate protection. The preservation of the ozone layer leads to an increase in resistance to climate change, which is especially relevant at the present time, contributes to the achievement of one of the priority goals related to a positive impact on the environment, established in the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated July 14, 2021 No. 1912-r “On the approval of the goals and main directions of sustainable (including green) development of the Russian Federation” — preservation, protection or improvement of the state of the environment.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".