Challenges of the F-gas regulation review in relation to EU decarbonisation goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The EU Commission draft proposal for the F gas regulation EU 514/2014 review was published in April 2022. This draft proposal is foreseen to adapt to new challenges coming from the EU Green Deal – striving to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, while keeping also alignment with the EU commitment towards the Montreal Protocol - Kigali amendment. There are different views how the revised F gas regulation should contribute to these goals. This paper analyses elements of the draft proposal in which the proposal: gets more strict for RACHP equipment (product bans) and reduces available amounts of refrigerant on the market (phase down quota) for new equipment as well as for servicing needs. It will also show the challenges of the proposed changes and adaptations, impact on the market and industry of RACHP equipment – relation to energy efficiency of the equipment, availability of the HFC refrigerants, new alternatives, etc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".