Evaluatie van het Climate Change Initiative vanPresident Bush
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report evaluates the Climate Change Initiative as presented by President Bush on February 14, 2002. The President's proposal aims to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the US economy by 18 per cent between 2002 and 2012. This policy target can be regarded as being very modest, when compared to historical trends and projected baseline developments. It will not prevent US emissions from rising and in fact, the proposal implies that US greenhouse gas emissions in 2012 will be 32 per cent above the 1990-level. This is far above the original Kyoto target for the US of -7 per cent in 2010, or -3 per cent corrected for sinks. The US effort is also significantly less than the efforts of the EU, Japan and Canada under the Kyoto Protocol. Yet, there are concerns that even the modest US target will not be met in case of economic slowdown and because of its voluntary character and lack of a compliance regime or clear rules for corporate participation. Furthermore, the Bush Initiative advocates using intensity targets in the international climate change regime for the steps to be taken after Kyoto but overlooks serious problems associated with this approach. The main problem is the inherent uncertainty about the environmental effectiveness. Furthermore, it is very likely to lead to delays in reducing global emissions, making the EU target of stabilising greenhouse gas concentrations below a doubling of pre-industrial levels no longer feasible. It can be concluded that the Bush Initiative offers no credible alternative to the Kyoto Protocol as a basis for establishing an effective and acceptable regime. At the same time, the President's proposal is mainly of political significance as it explicitly accepts the importance of the climate change problem and the long-term objective of the Climate Change Convention. Thereby, the Bush Initiative improves the longer term prospects for US participation in a global climate change regime.
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 | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".