Summary of the Doha Climate Change Conference: 26 November-8 December 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
and the other addressing paragraphs 7-8 (enhancing the level of ambition during the pre-2020 period), and agreed on the election of officers. BANGKOK CLIMATE CHANGE TALKS 2012:This informal session took place from 30 August -5 September 2012 in Bangkok, Thailand.Under the ADP, parties convened in roundtable sessions to discuss their vision and aspirations for the ADP, the desired results and how these results can be achieved.Parties also discussed how to enhance ambition, the role of means of implementation and how to strengthen international cooperative initiatives, as well as the elements that could frame the ADP's work.The AWG-KP focused on resolving outstanding issues to ensure successful completion of the group's work in Doha by recommending an amendment to the CMP for adoption.This would allow a second commitment period under the Protocol to start immediately from 1 January 2013.The AWG-KP produced informal papers outlining the elements for a Doha decision adopting amendments to the Kyoto Protocol.The AWG-LCA continued working on practical solutions to fulfill specific mandates from COP 17.The focus was on outcomes needed to conclude the group's work in Doha, how to reflect the elements in the final outcome of the AWG-LCA and whether additional work might be required beyond COP 18.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.192 | 0.090 |
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".