MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408690053 · doi:10.4324/9781003597681-5

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer

2025· book-chapter· en· W4408690053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda Maria Spielmann

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSpace exploration and regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal ProtocolOzone layerOzoneLayer (electronics)Protocol (science)Environmental scienceChemistryMedicineOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ozone layer is essential for life on planet Earth as it absorbs most of the harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation emitted by the sun. Thus, it came as a shock when it was discovered that the emission of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) into the stratosphere was causing dangerous damage. Soon, negotiations on an Multilateral Environmental Agreement (MEA) to control a phase down of their use would be adopted. Today, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is widely regarded as the most successful MEA to date. Since its adoption, its institutional structures have extensively expanded and set many precedents for future MEAs and their design. As such, the Montreal Protocol is the ideal starting point for an analysis of MEA authority expansions. This chapter lays out the problem of ozone depletion and the creation of the Montreal Protocol and delves into three of the most impressive cases of informal authority expansion which can be observed inside its framework to identify their main driving forces. This includes the creation of the Interim Multilateral Fund, the definition of developing countries, and the creation of its compliance management mechanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1120.037

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same topicSpace exploration and regulationFrench-language works237,207