MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1528915039 · doi:10.1002/9781118392607.ch7

The global legal dimension

2014· other· en· W1528915039 on OpenAlexaff
Alf Håkon Hoel, David VanderZwaag

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaConventionMarine conservationBusinessDimension (graph theory)Convention on Biological DiversityInternational lawEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningRelation (database)GeographyPolitical scienceBiodiversityFisheryEnvironmental scienceLawEcologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter describes the global legal framework for the management and conservation of living marine resources, addressing legally binding as well as non-binding instruments. It first describes the 1982 United Nations (UN) Law of the Sea Convention and its main provisions in relation to living marine resources. It then overviews further global fisheries agreements such as the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) documents, particularly the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, are also discussed. The importance of multilateral environmental agreements, such as the 1992 Biodiversity Convention, is then highlighted. The chapter reviews the contributions of global environment and development conferences/summits and the UN General Assembly resolutions and processes. It provides a six-part navigational tour of the array of international instruments and institutional mechanisms established by the global community to govern fisheries and marine biodiversity conservation. Finally the chapter provides possible future developments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.977

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.024

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.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207