MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392185615 · doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ad2d77

Development of ambitious and realistic targets to reduce short-lived climate pollutant emissions in nationally determined contributions: case study for Colombia

2024· article· en· W4392185615 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher S. Malley, L. González, Maria del Carmen Cabeza, Mauricio Gaitan, John H Melo, Silvia Ulloa, Johan Kuylenstierna, Seraphine Haeussling, Elsa N. Lefèvre

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutantEnvironmental scienceAir pollutantsClimate changeGreenhouse gasNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionAir pollutionEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Limiting global temperature increases to below 1.5 °C requires reductions in Short-Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs), like methane, black carbon, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which is rarely reflected in targets within Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Colombia’s 2020 NDC is explored as a case study for how Governments can integrate SLCP mitigation targets into climate change commitments. Methane and HFC mitigation contribute approximately 9% of Colombia’s GHG reduction commitment, and a separate target is included to reduce black carbon emissions by 40% by 2030 compared to 2014 levels. These targets are shown to be ambitious , due to the inclusion of a new black carbon target, realistic due to the identification of mitigation measures to achieve them, and additional to CO 2 mitigation. Analysis of the planning process establishing these targets emphasises the importance of long-term planning to obtain agreement between coordinating institutions and implementing institutions on the utility of SLCP targets, and capacity-building within national institutions.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.169
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research CommunicationsSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207