MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399095453 · doi:10.1016/j.esg.2024.100212

Reflections on the first Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement

2024· article· en· W4399095453 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth System Governance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicLaw, logistics, and international trade
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaInternational Institute for Sustainable Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgreementPolitical sciencePhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This commentary reflects on the first Global Stocktake (GST) under the Paris Agreement on climate change to offer insights for advancing climate actions and informing future GST cycles. The first GST, which concluded at COP28 in 2023, demonstrates the vital importance of a comprehensive, balanced, and inclusive approach to multilateral climate action. The GST's call to transition away from fossil fuels is an important political achievement. Yet, the GST outcome also reveals gaps, shortcomings, and potential dangers ahead. Future climate negotiations, we argue, would benefit from a more integrated, holistic perspective, and more nuanced balancing of ambition and implementation. More needs to be done to protect human rights, increase loss and damage funding, go beyond technological solutions, and address gender-differentiated consequences of climate change. Moreover, a great deal of work, including by nonstate actors, will be required to ensure the first GST translates into real action on the ground.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.224 · 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