Continuing benefits of the Montreal Protocol and protection of the stratospheric ozone layer for human health and the environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The protection of Earth’s stratospheric ozone (O3) is an ongoing process under the auspices of the universally ratified Montreal Protocol and its Amendments and adjustments. A critical part of this process is the assessment of the environmental issues related to changes in O3. The United Nations Environment Programme’s Environmental Effects Assessment Panel provides annual scientific evaluations of some of the key issues arising in the recent collective knowledge base. This current update includes a comprehensive assessment of the incidence rates of skin cancer, cataract and other skin and eye diseases observed worldwide; the effects of UV radiation on tropospheric oxidants, and air and water quality; trends in breakdown products of fluorinated chemicals and recent information of their toxicity; and recent technological innovations of building materials for greater resistance to UV radiation. These issues span a wide range of topics, including both harmful and beneficial effects of exposure to UV radiation, and complex interactions with climate change. While the Montreal Protocol has succeeded in preventing large reductions in stratospheric O3, future changes may occur due to a number of natural and anthropogenic factors. Thus, frequent assessments of potential environmental impacts are essential to ensure that policies remain based on the best available scientific knowledge. Graphical abstract
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 | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.008 |
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".