O PROTOCOLO DE QUIOTO E O PAPEL DO ESTADO: OS CASOS DO CANADÁ E DO BRASIL.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artigo analisa e compara as políticas públicas relacionadas ao Protocolo de Quioto no Canadá e no Brasil, países que foram ativos no desenvolvimento histórico do Protocolo. Verificam-se também os conflitos existentes entre o pensamento neoliberal e o papel vital do Estado como promotor e protetor de um meio ambiente saudável e equilibrado. As estruturas estatais de cada país, bem como os respectivos níveis de desenvolvimento econômico e social, trazem implicações para a implementação interna do Protocolo, e por isso são exploradas. São apresentadas considerações em relação às mudanças climáticas no plano internacional, eis que se trata de fenômeno que não respeita as fronteiras políticas, e que traz implicações complexas para os papéis do Estado. Abstract: This article analyzes and compares public policies related to the Kyoto Protocol in Canada and Brazil, countries that have played an active role in the historical development of the Protocol. It is verified that in both countries conflicts exist between neo-liberal thought and the vital role of the State as the promoter and protector of a healthy and balanced environment. The state structures of each country are explored as well as their level of economic and social development, which have shown to influence the implementation of the Protocol. Considerations were also made in relation to the international nature of Climate Change, which is a phenomenon that does not respect political borders and creates complex implications for the role of the State.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".