Is the United Nations framework convention on climate change an effective (or appropriate) institution for supporting indigenous peoples' adaptation to climate change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the core of today's global climate change regime, is an intergovernmental institution that was established in the 1990s with the objective of bringing nations together to negotiate policies in a global effort to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system.Today, with increasing scientific certainty regarding the current and future impacts of climate change, and the growing notion that some degree of change is unavoidable regardless of mitigation, the role of adaptation, and its scope, have expanded a great deal within the institution since it was first envisioned.It is unclear however what opportunities and barriers this discursive structure may create for adaptation support for vulnerable sub-national populations such as indigenous peoples.Accordingly, this study uses critical discourse analysis to examine the evolution of the embedded discourse on adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change in the institution based on the official decisions rendered by the Conference of the Parties, and seeks to expose the policy implications for indigenous peoples at different scales.Noteworthy trends identified in this study include an increasingly explicit recognition of the heightened vulnerability of indigenous peoples to climate change, and the gradual shift away from approaches that are purely scientific to approaches that value and include traditional and indigenous knowledge for adaptation where appropriate.Adaptation assistance provided by developed nations however, remains exclusively aimed at projects in developing country Parties.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".