MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6988007885

Who Needs what to Implement the Kyoto Protocol?: An Assessment of Capacity Building Needs in 33 Developing Countries

2001· article· en· W6988007885 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersForeign Affairs and International Trade CanadaMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaWorld Business Council for Sustainable DevelopmentUniversidade Federal do Rio de JaneiroUniversity of Cape TownEnvironmental Protection Administration, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. TaiwanGlobal Environment FacilityAndlinger Center for Energy and the Environment, Princeton UniversityEuropean CommissionInter-American Development BankUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsCapacity buildingDeveloping countryVulnerability (computing)Food securityClimate changeSustainable developmentUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeVulnerability assessment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For African countries, it is imperative to increase capacity for implementing both the Climate Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, in view of the continent’s vulnerability to the adverse impacts of climate change, including the threat to food security and sustainable development. The country surveys, which are framed around the list of perceived capacity building needs annexed to Decision 10/CP.5, provided insight into the capacity building needs of the project-countries. Hence, the aspects examined during the assessment exercise reflect some of the concerns of African countries; and the stakeholders’ responses can be taken as indications of the capacity building needs of the African countries assessed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas)Same topicClimate Change and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207