Oceans at Rio+20
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this article, we examine oceans outcomes from the Third United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (or Rio+20) in relation to how ocean problems and solutions were defined and by whom. We highlight the extent to which problem and solution definitions were shared among participants, in relation to three specific issues on the agenda at Rio+20: conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction, small‐scale fisheries, and ocean acidification. We find that discussions about each of these issues reflect three challenges recognized as complicating oceans management: mismatches between ecological and governance scale, homogeneity among interest groups advocating for ocean conservation, and increased interest in both protection and exploitation of ocean resources. Overall, we found little evidence of constructive dialogue at Rio+20, where participants focused on advancing predefined positions, and we consider the implications of our analysis for ultimately addressing our three focal issues and for oceans management more generally.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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 it