Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change policy requires the collective action of the world community. Although the reduction of green-house gas (GHG) is the traightforward means to resolving the issues arising from climate change, the world community fails to collectively agree on the scientifically proven GHG reduction target. This paper explains the reasons for this failure, describes the international negotiation platform called Conference of Parties (COP) process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), reviews the outcome of the 26th COP meeting held in late 2021 in Glasgow, United Kingdom, and finally introduces the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer as a successful example of the world community which acted collectively to stop the ozone depletion. Although the member states publicly argued for stronger collective action to combat climate change, COP 26, in the end, fell short of meeting the growing expectations by youths for drastic action. The outcome document “Glasgow Climate Pact” embodies compromising elements reflecting the difficulties for collective action under the UNFCCC 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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.105 |
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".