The fiscalization of environmental protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental protection and sustainable development have become major topics on the global agenda (OECD, 2008, European Commission, 2007) partly because of the seriousness of the situation and partly because of the need for international cooperation. Global climate change has made it clear to many decision makers that climate protection should be taken into consideration as an international strategic goal. Environmental protection, which had fallen principally within national competence before, operated especially through regulations (e.g. standards, quotas, production restrictions), it was therefore these instruments initially that were attempted to be adopted at the international level. An obvious example for this was the Montreal Protocol signed on the 16th September 1987, which banned as from 1st January 1989 the use of certain greenhouse gases (freon) damaging the ozone layer. However, the application of regulatory instruments at the international level has remained limited till now, as it is extremely difficult to reach a consensus between a large number of states of various economic magnitude. Due to the lack of sanctions, certain countries have failed to cover the expenses of environmental protection and, applying free rider tactics basically, they have failed to meet their commitments or have not joined the relevant international agreements in the first place.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".