Update on ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) and other gases of interest to the Montreal protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in the global atmospheric abundance of a substance are determined by the balance between its emissions and removal. Declines observed for ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) controlled under the Montreal Protocol are due to global emission reductions that have made emissions smaller than removals. Most ODSs are potent greenhouse gases. As the majority of ODSs have been phased out, demand for hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) and hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) substitutes for the substances controlled under the Montreal Protocol has increased; these are also greenhouse gases. HCFCs deplete much less ozone per kilogram emitted than chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), while HFCs essentially deplete no ozone. <br/><br/>\nThe amended and adjusted Montreal Protocol has continued to reduce emissions and atmospheric abundances of most controlled ozone-depleting substances. By 2012, the total combined abundance of anthropogenic ODSs in the troposphere (measured as Equivalent Chlorine) had decreased by nearly 10% from its peak value in 1994.<br/><br/>\nThe contributions to the overall decline in tropospheric chlorine (Cl) and bromine (Br) from substances and groups of substances controlled and not controlled under the Montreal Protocol have changed since the previous Assessment. The observed declines in total tropospheric Cl and Br from controlled substances during the 5-year period 2008–2012 were 13.4 ± 0.9 parts per trillion (ppt) yr<sup>-1</sup> and 0.14 ± 0.02 ppt yr<sup>-1</sup>, respectively.<sup>1</sup> [...]
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".