The Truth about the Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Stated in the Kyoto Protocol -Environmental Problems Used as Political and Economic Strategies by European Countries-
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses the process of the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol, including the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and government policies of different countries reflected in the process, and examines whether or not the protocol has significance for the prevention of global warming. The results suggest that the process of setting an emission reduction target undergone by the Japanese government did not include thorough discussions and accurate estimates. On the other hand, E.U. member countries and the U.S.A. had discussed various measures with everything taken into account before they attended the Conference of Parties III (COP3). It should have been easy to predict that Japan would be disadvantaged by the enactment of the Kyoto Protocol even before the conference was held. While emission reduction targets for Japan and other developed countries were being set in the Kyoto Conference, all participating countries must have been solely determined to ensure that the protocol would work to their advantage, rather than actively trying to prevent global warming. Furthermore, when the protocol was adopted and emission reduction targets for Britain and Germany were set, these countries had surprisingly already accomplished their goals. This was presumably because industrialized E.U. countries held particularly dominant positions in the conference. On the other hand, Japan was solely determined to build a consensus among the participating countries and maintain its dignity as the host country of the Kyoto Conference. As a result, Japan had to agree to an emission reduction target that could not be easily accomplished.
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 | 0.035 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".