Глобальний рівень міжнародної екологічної безпеки в сучасному міжнародно- му праві навколишнього середовища
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the analysis of the global level of international environmental security. It is argued that the global level of international environmental security is a state of the environment that prevents the deterioration of the environment and the threat to human health across the globe.The article examines major international instruments that address the environmental issues of the global level of international environmental security: the Ozone Layer Convention and the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances; the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol to it limiting and reducing greenhouse gas emissions not regulated by the Montreal Protocol, as well as other substances that cause or can cause climate change; The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the Nagoya Protocol on the Access to Genetic Resources and Sharing on a Fair and Equal Benefit from Their Utilization, the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Additional Protocol on Liability and Compensation for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety; Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; International Tropical Timber Agreement; International Tropical Timber Agreement; United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Countries Affected by Serious Drought and / or Desertification, especially in Africa. In analyzing international instruments that operate at the global level of international environmental security, attention is paid not only to the practice of foreign states in the implementation of the provisions of these conventions, but also to the contribution of Ukraine to their implementation. The conclusion is drawn to the need for the development and endorsement by the world community ofspecific strategies, action plans and immediate measures that can resist or even eliminate the consequences of dangerous environmental situations. The peculiarity of these measures is their scale: they must be carried out for the entire planet Earth.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".