MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052198874

Report on the unexpected emissions of CFC-11. A report of the scientific assessment panel of the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer

2021· article· en· W7052198874 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDORA Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa)) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal ProtocolOzone layerOzoneGreenhouse gasConsumption (sociology)Atmospheric emissionsOzone depletionEmission inventory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global CFC-11 emissions were expected to decrease steadily after 2010 because of the full phaseout of production and consumption (see Figure ES.1, blue shading). Surprisingly, however, CFC-11 emissions began to increase in 2013 and were high from 2014 to 2018 (Figure ES.1, purple line). After the publication of this emission increase in 2018, emissions were substantially lower in 2019. A large fraction of the emission increase was attributed to Eastern China based on regional emission estimates. These regional emissions also declined substantially from 2017 to 2019. The increase in global CFC-11 emissions was not a result of increased bank releases. The amounts of CFC-11 in banks and the release rates from the banks remain highly uncertain (see Figure ES.1, blue shading). The increases in emissions observed to date are small enough not to have a major impact on CFC-11 atmospheric abundances, so they will not have a major impact on the expected stratospheric ozone recovery. However, the increases in banks and how they might augment future emissions have large uncertainties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDORA Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa))Same topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207