Impact of the Montreal Protocol on Decision-Making Processes for Participation: A Case Study of Türkiye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study provides a comprehensive analysis of Türkiye's decision-making processes in the context of the international ozone regime, particularly focusing on the country's engagement in the Vienna Convention and the Montreal Protocol during the 1980s and early 1990s. Utilizing process tracing methodology and primary sources, and adopting an interest-based framework the research delves into Türkiye's involvement and pinpoints the principal determinants of its international environmental policy. The study argues that Türkiye's approach to environmental cooperation in the Convention and Protocol was shaped by the incentive and sanction provisions of the Montreal Protocol, efforts to align Türkiye's commercial and political relations with the European Community, the growing involvement of Western countries in the agreements, and the potential environmental prestige gained from cooperative endeavors. The study emphasizes the trade provisions and Article 5 status within the Montreal Protocol, both of which played a critical role in influencing Türkiye's policy choices. This significance primarily stems from the requirement for new calculations in abatement costs. It illuminates the causal links between specific design elements of the ozone regime and their impact on Türkiye's policy decisions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".