Kyoto protocol: Implications of a flawed but important environmental policy. Can. Public Policy 26(3):347–359
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Protocole de Kyoto est une étape importante et nécessaire dans la protection de l’environnement global. Par contre, une analyse révèle des problèmes qui pourraient entraver l’efficacité de ce traité. Des déficiences techniques, des ambiguïtés et des contradictions existent dans le texte légal. De plus, d’une perspective canadienne, une distribution inéquitable des coûts liés à l’amélioration de l’environnement pourrait se pro-duire malgré les efforts préparatoires visant à atteindre un traitement juste et équitable des nations participantes dans le contexte du programme international du commerce des émissions. Des solutions, comme la vente aux enchères des droits d’émission, sont proposées afin de remédier à ces inquiétudes. The Kyoto Protocol is an important and necessary step toward protecting the global environment. However, analysis reveals problems that could hamper the effectiveness of this treaty. Technical deficiencies, ambiguities, and inconsistencies exist in the legal text. In addition, from the Canadian perspective, an inequitable distribution of the costs of environmental enhancement may occur despite design efforts that attempted to achieve fairness and equitable treatment for participating nations through the international emission trading program. Solutions for these concerns are proposed, including the auctioning of emission rights.
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 | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".