Semi-quantitative method for assessing “mainstreaming” of the regulatory framework in wetlands biodiversity conservation
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 Conventional measures of mainstreaming wetlands biodiversity conservation such as counting relevant regulations and policies produce little insight into the success or failure of mainstreaming or of the potential for impact on wetlands biodiversity of sectoral laws and policies. The authors developed a semi-quantitative process to evaluate the regulatory framework at national and provincial levels that can effectively promote discussions with sectoral ministries on change of legal/regulatory texts that would improve the management of wetlands. The paper outlines the methodology, how the results are interpreted, and some of the key concerns in implementing the methodology. Keywords: wetlandsbiodiversitymainstreamingregulationspolicylawsChina Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the support of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)/State Forestry Administration/Global Environment Facility through the Wetland Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use in China Project (CPR/98/G32). Dr Yuan Jun, the project national coordinator, provided insight into many issues of concern to the expert panel. The staff of the Project Office arranged for the workshops held at different sites for training in the assessment procedure. The paper is based, in part, on training documents developed by the senior author for the UNDP and the State Forestry Administration, and later published as chapter in a monograph that summarized the entire project (Ongley Citation2009).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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