Implications of the Montreal Decision Prepared by
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CDM Dialogue Papers are intended to help advance the design process for the Clean Development Mechanism. The concepts developed and opinions expressed in these papers are those of the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) although these views have been informed by extensive interactions with participants in the “CDM Dialogue. ” Since May 2000, CCAP has facilitated several meetings of the CDM Dialogue, which brings together a group of high-level climate negotiators from developed and developing countries. The process gives participants a chance to informally discuss different approaches to the design of the CDM in a relaxed, off-the-record, non-negotiating setting. The CDM Dialogue is operated in conjunction with the Dialogue on Future International Actions to Address Global Climate Change (Future Actions Dialogue or FAD)—a forum for these high-level climate negotiators to discuss options for the post-2012 international response to climate change. More information on the FAD is available at:
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.075 | 0.006 |
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".