Bibliographic record
Abstract
This piece is a reflection on the role of the trade union movement in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process, including its annual Conference of the Parties (COP). I write it as someone who has been engaging in COPs as part of the global trade union delegation for the past four years. And it’s important to stress: for the labour movement, climate action is not reducible to the UNFCCC. Whatever trade unions decide to do or not do inside the COP process, there is an enormous need for climate activism in a range of other spaces, from the workplace to national politics. That being said, I will argue that trade unions should continue to engage in COPs, as it is a key forum where the new climate economy is being shaped. Although I recognise the many failings and structural weaknesses of the COP process, with Brazil taking up the COP30 Presidency this year, this would be a bad time to withdraw from it.
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 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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".