From Kyoto to Marrakech; A Long Walk through\nthe Desert: Mirage Or Oasis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the results of four years of negotiations of the parties to the UNFCCC,3 from the Kyoto Protocol signed in 1997 to the Marrakech Accords in 2001. This process was intended to provide the details and operational rules needed for parties to make decisions on whether to ratify and how to implement the Kyoto Protocol in time for the start of the first commitment period in 2008. The author analyzes the Marrakech Accords with respect to the Kyoto Mechanisms, reporting, verification, compliance, and developing country issues, and concludes that the Kyoto Protocol in itself is a negligible step forward in terms of both the environmental and equity goals of the UNFCCC. It does provide, however, the best chance for international progress on these issues, in that it should serve as a pilot phase to address some of the fears and concerns preventing parties from taking more meaningful action. It has the potential to serve as a basis for separating useful tools from those that should not become part of the long term international response to climate change. Perhaps most importantly, it should serve as a mechanism to focus negotiations on the major unresolved issues, such as how to fairly distribute emissions of greenhouse gases at levels that do not threaten the global climate system.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".