Preserving Cultural Diversity through the Preservation of Biological Diversity: Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and the Role of Digital Technologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rosemary Coombe was unable to attend the workshop, but she graciously agreed to contribute this paper. In this article, Rosemary Coombe outlines the links that exist between cultural diversity and biological diversity (biodiversity). “Biodiversity preservation, ” she writes, “is an inherently multicultural process. ” Coombe’s focus is an international legal instrument which is principally concerned with the preservation of biodiversity: the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). She also examines the contested role of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in relation to the preservation of cultural diversity, and the ways of amending conventional IPR approaches so as to limit their role in the misappropriation of traditional cultural knowledge. Coombe’s examination of the efforts and obligations of council parties to the CBD (of which Canada is one) suggests that Canadian policy relating to IPRs cannot focus solely on the obligations created by membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO). Where the latter organization enjoins members to expand IPR protection. Parties to the CBD are also obliged to concern themselves with the preservation of biological diversity – obligations which enjoin more restrictive approaches to domestic and international IPR rights. Coombe’s article suggests that the recently established Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee would be well advised to consider Canada’s obligations under the CBD when it examines issues of IPR. PLEASE NOTE: This article was prepared for the Council of Europe under its Cultural Diversity, Cultural Policy Programme. The author circulates it for comment with the request that it not be reproduced or cited without permission.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".