MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7071596846

Summary of the Doha Climate Change Conference: 26 November-8 December 2012

2012· report· en· W7071596846 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · 2012
Typereport
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, nukleare Sicherheit und VerbraucherschutzUdenrigsministerietNew Zealand Foreign Affairs and TradeBundesministerium für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und EntwicklungMinistry of EnvironmentFox Chase Cancer CenterU.S. Department of StateMinistry of Economy, Trade and IndustryEuropean CommissionAustralian GovernmentBundesamt für UmweltGovernment of Canada
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaLiquationDiafiltrationTriacetinEmperipolesisDurvalumab
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

anthropogenic interference" with the climate system.The Convention, which entered into force on 21 March 1994, now has 195 parties.In December 1997, delegates to COP 3 in Kyoto, Japan, agreed to a Protocol to the UNFCCC that commits industrialized countries and countries in transition to a market economy (EITs) to achieve emission reduction targets.These countries, known as Annex I parties under the UNFCCC, agreed to reduce their overall emissions of six greenhouse gases by an average of 5% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012 (first commitment period), with specific targets varying from country to country.The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005 and now has 192 parties.LONG-TERM NEGOTIATIONS IN 2005-2009: Convening in Montreal, Canada, at the end of 2005, the first session of the CMP decided to establish the AWG-KP under Protocol Article 3.9, which mandates consideration of Annex I parties' further commitments at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period.COP 11 created a process to consider longterm cooperation under the Convention through a series of four workshops known as "the Convention Dialogue."In December 2007, COP 13 and CMP 3 in Bali, Indonesia, resulted in agreement on the Bali Roadmap on long-term issues.COP 13 adopted the Bali Action Plan and established the AWG-LCA with a mandate to focus on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology and a shared vision for long-term cooperative action.Negotiations on Annex I parties' further commitments continued under the AWG-KP.The deadline for concluding the two-track negotiations was in Copenhagen in 2009.In preparation, both AWGs held several negotiating sessions in 2008-2009.COPENHAGEN: The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, took place in December 2009.The highprofile event was marked by disputes over transparency and process.During the high-level segment, informal negotiations took place in a group consisting of major economies and representatives of regional and other negotiating groups.Late in the evening of 18 December these talks resulted in a political agreement: the "Copenhagen Accord," which was then presented to the COP plenary for adoption.After 13 hours of debate, delegates ultimately agreed to "take note" of the Copenhagen Accord.In 2010, over 140 countries indicated support for the Accord.More than 80 countries also provided information on their national mitigation targets or actions.Parties also agreed to extend the mandates of the AWG-LCA and AWG-KP until COP 16 and CMP 6. CANCUN: The UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, took place in December 2010, where parties finalized the Cancun Agreements.Under the Convention track, Decision 1/CP.16 recognized the need for deep cuts in global emissions in order to limit global average temperature rise to 2C.Parties agreed to keep the global long-term goal under regular review and consider strengthening it during a review by 2015, including in relation to a proposed 1.5C target.They took note of emission reduction targets and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) communicated by developed and developing countries, respectively (FCCC/SB/2011/INF.1/Rev.1 and FCCC/AWGLCA/2011/INF.1, both issued after Cancun).Decision 1/CP.16 also addressed other aspects of mitigation, such Vol.12 No.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam)Same topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207