The Kyoto Protocol: Reflections on its Significance on the Occasion of\nits Entry into Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the Kyoto Protocol was signed in December 1997, there were high hopes in some quarters that it marked the beginning of a global commitment to climate change mitigation. In the past seven years, however, the Protocol has languished while many of the kev, States have done little to implement it. Until the fall of 2004 it was uncertain whether the Protocol would ever enter into force. To the surprise of many, with ratification by Russia, it came into effect on February 16, 2005, only three years before the start of the first period of commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the environment. This comment marks the occasion of the entry into force of the Protocol. The author considers Bruce Pardys recent critique of the Protocol in the Journal of Environment Law Pardy is one of the minority of academic writers who maintain the Protocol is so fundamentally flawed that we would make more progress without it. The author challenges Pardo s arguments and concludes that the Protocol may prove to be the most crucial step toward an effective international response to climate change.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".