MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367158992 · doi:10.1021/cen-09926-feature2

Global climate negotiations resume

2021· article· en· W4367158992 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
CHERYL HOGUE

Bibliographic record

VenueC&EN Global Enterprise · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasNegotiationClimate changeEuropean unionEmissions tradingRenewable energyPolitical scienceGlobal warmingEnvironmental protectionNatural resource economicsBusinessEconomyInternational tradeEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEconomicsOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change continues to intensify. Last month, record-breaking high temperatures —above 40 °C—scorched the US Pacific Northwest and southwestern Canada. North America marked its hottest June, and Europe sweltered through its second-warmest June on record, according to the European Union–supported Copernicus Climate Change Service . As temperatures rise, talks sponsored by the United Nations aimed at curtailing this environmental crisis are restarting after pausing for the COVID-19 pandemic. Negotiators are now meeting virtually, resuming where their talks ended 18 months ago at a previous global climate conference, in Madrid. Their goal is to finish a set of rules for countries to follow as they fulfill pledges made under the 2015 Paris Agreement to control greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing these emissions will require innovations from the chemical sciences in materials, energy efficiency, batteries, renewable energy, and technologies to capture and sequester carbon dioxide . Negotiators hope to wrap up details in

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1220.058

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueC&EN Global EnterpriseSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207