Instrumentos y políticas para la eliminación de productos que dañan la capa de ozono en el marco del Protocolo de Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este artículo trata sobre el acuerdo alcanzado en el Protocolo de Montreal para las substancias que dañan la capa de ozono y sobre las medidas adoptadas en algunos países para cumplir este acuerdo. El escrito repasa las estrategias de la UE (Finlandia, Alemania y Holanda), EEUU, Chile, Indonesia y presenta resumen para el Sudeste Asiático. Estas estrategias incluyen tres tipos de medidas diferentes que se describen en el estudio. Estas medidas son: (1) Medidas de Control y Mandato (restricciones cuantitativas, prohibiciones, etc), (2) Instrumentos Económicos (mercados de permisos, los impuestos (subsidios) y las exenciones arancelarias) y (3) los Acuerdos Voluntarios. El artículo termina con la presentación de las tablas resumen sobre las regulaciones para la eliminación de substancias que dañan la capa de ozono en diversos países.
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 | 0.029 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".