Explaining Variations in the Subnational Implementation of Global Agreements: The Case of Ecuador and the Convention on Biological Diversity
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
We conducted case studies in Ecuador to assess subnational governments’ implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and to identify factors linked with successful implementation. We anticipated resources to be the main limiting factor, yet the record of implementation is not as closely tied to the availability of financial and human resources as might be expected in a developing country. Governments, in diverse sociopolitical and economic contexts, do have alternatives to implement multilateral environmental agreements. The type of development leaders promote and the priority they grant to environmental issues determine the use of available resources. We also observed the significant role played by local, national, and international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and funding agencies in circulating biodiversity messages and spurring the elaboration of policies as well as on the ground projects. This picture would suggest to enhance awareness-raising trainings and to explore further the role of collaboration between governments and NGOs at local scales.
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 | 0.004 | 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) | 0.000 | 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