A Commentary and Critique on Progress in Ocean and Climate Change Action at Recent COP Meetings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ocean was finally recognized within the formal UN climate change negotiations at COP 25 in 2019. This result was due to a decades long multinational, collaborative effort spearheaded by the Global Ocean Forum under the inspired leadership of Dr. Biliana Cicin-Sain. This article describes some of the major events leading up to COP 25 and the developments in ocean-climate change activities at the following two COP meetings in Glasgow, Scotland (COP 26) and Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt (COP 27). Observations about each of the COP meetings are presented, and successes and failures are identified along the way. In particular, the importance of the formal dialogues on ocean and climate change are assessed, and the urgency of translating hopes and aspirations into real climate action for the ocean is highlighted in preparation for the COP 28 in Dubai in 2023.
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 | 0.042 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.051 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".