Analisis Pembentukan Perjanjian Internasional untuk Menangani Krisis Penipisan Ozon akibat Emisi Orbital Spacecraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to establish the regulatory framework for emissions generated by orbital spacecraft within the scope of international law, particularly space law and international environmental law, and to formulate a new international agreement that can address the emissions issues arising from orbital spacecraft. In analyzing these issues, the author employs a normative legal method, utilizing legislative and conceptual approaches. The Outer Space Treaty, as the primary agreement regulating all activities in outer space, proves inadequate in addressing the existing problems. Article IX, considered the closest provision to addressing the issue of orbital spacecraft emissions, still falls short and fails to provide a comprehensive solution. The Montreal Protocol, as the principal agreement related to compounds potentially causing ozone depletion, also falls short in evaluating the threat posed by orbital spacecraft emissions due to the limited coverage of regulatory jurisdiction. The regulatory vacuum concerning the impact of orbital spacecraft emissions on ozone depletion needs to be promptly addressed through the creation of a new international agreement. The formation of such an agreement should adhere to existing systematic structures, and the substance of the new agreement must be able to accommodate on-the-ground issues while maintaining an environmental perspective.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".