Do all roads lead to Copenhagen? The case of China’s participation in the post-2012 climate change regime
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global solution. In late 2007, governments adopted the Bali Roadmap, launching negotiations toward a new global climate agreement. Among nations with large CO2 emissions, only China, sustains a rapid economic growth dependent on the expanded use of carbon-intensive coal. The role of China in post- Kyoto climate negotiations is therefore critical to the international effort to combat climate change and global warming. In fact, China ratified the UNFCCC in January 1993 and was among the first ten countries to become Convention Parties. Over the years, China has been actively participating in climate change regime and has taken a multiple-track approach in climate change negotiations, including the UN Convention/Protocol hard law path, the APP partnership, multilateral and bilateral climate cooperation agreements, G8 and APEC processes and more recently, the US-led Major Economies Meetings. China’s FCCC/Kyoto Protocol participation draws largely from the previous experience of participating in the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete ozone layer. To China, participating in climate change negotiations is a legitimate access to assistance and technology. Institutionally, China’s led agency in climate change affairs has been shifted from China Meteorological Administration (science), Ministry of Environmental Protection (environment) to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (diplomacy) and National Development and Reform Commission (economic interests). Internationally, China’s multiple-track approach further raises its profile and boost negotiations for the post-2012 regime both inside and outside the UN process. The question that what does China want from the post-Kyoto climate policy depends entirely on how urgent China perceives climate change to be, and how badly it wants the world to agree a solution to the problem.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".