Asia-Pacific partnership on clean development and climate : China and international climate policy beyond Kyoto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate [APP] of Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, USA and their new partner Canada is a new phenomenon in international climate policy and open for enlargement by other interested states. This nonlegally binding sustainable development Partnership connects climate protection and energy security for the first time in an international agreement. As a potential framework for the other 'parallel tracks' to the UN climate regime of Framework Convention on Climate Change [FCCC] and Kyoto Protocol [KP], the APP – which is still by far underfinanced – at its core is a political agreement for the development and transfer of environmentally-sound technologies. The Partnership intends only relative emission reductions and contains no binding emission reduction commitments. Officially, the APP is consistent with the principles of the FCCC and intended to complement but not replace the KP. Nevertheless, the APP is only one of the partnerships embodied already in the FCCC technology framework and, therefore, no complement. The APP was intended as an opposing model against the KP and will have to clarify its position for the future. A fruitful cooperation or at least a peaceful coexistence with the UN climate regime is important because every technology-orientated approach needs market incentives. Any international Post-2012 climate change regime will have to combine the as yet competing approaches of market pull (KP) and technology push (APP). Integrating also climate change and energy security concerns is especially important for Asia as a region with a strong economic growth and the APP is a forerunner in this. China plays an especially important role, of course. The third ministerial meeting of the APP will take place in China in 2009.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".