Geoengineering and the Approach of International Environmental Documents Towards It's Regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is considered to be the biggest crisis of the present era, and traditional approaches have not been very effective to deal with it yet. Thus, in recent decades, geoengineering which includes two main methods of carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management has come to the attention of countries. Like other emerging technologies, besides its benefits, most important of which to combat climate change, due to scientific uncertainty, they might have harmful effects on the environment. The present article has aimed to describe geoengineering methods and their environmental pros and cons. The findings of the article show that although the geoengineering methods in international environmental treaties are scattered, mostly in the form of implicit expressions, the rules and the actions of member states indicate the different and sometimes contradictory attitudes toward geoengineering, which varies from explicit or implicit approval of some methods, especially in treaties related to climate change, to explicit and implicit opposition of others, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the London Protocol, and the Ozone Conservation Convention. This dispersion is so great that a specific legal system cannot be assumed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 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".