De veroordeling van Shell tot 45% CO2-reductie in 2030: Over legitimiteit en effectiviteit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Het opstellen van regels ter bescherming van burgers tegen de schadelijke gevolgen van klimaatverandering is een taak van de wetgever. De civiele rechter heeft op dat terrein in beginsel geen rol. Als echter sprake is van reguleringsfalen en de overheid daardoor tekortschiet in de bescherming van de burger kan dat anders zijn. Nu de doelen uit de Klimaatwet stelselmatig niet worden gehaald kan betoogd worden dat er, zeker op het moment dat de Shell-zaak speelde, sprake was van zo’n reguleringsfalen. Aan het daaropvolgende civiele oordeel kan echter wel de eis worden gesteld dat het feitelijk de mensenrechtelijke positie van de (toekomstige) bewoners van Nederland dient. Want als het optreden van de civiele rechter niet effectief is, corrigeert het dat reguleringsfalen niet. Die effectiviteit is in de Shell-zaak op voorhand niet evident.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".