International Law and GMOs: Can the Precautionary Principle Protect Biological Diversity?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Número 118Enero - Abril 2007ISSN 0041 8633 INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GMOS: CAN THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE PROTECT BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY? Juan Antonio HERRERA I.* La expansión en la producción, distribución y consumo de organismos genéticamente modificados ha dado como resultado discusiones a favor y en contra de los mismos y su regulación jurídica. La autora del presente estudio nos expone los diversos escenarios en los que se desenvuelven controversias tales como las restricciones que se les han hecho a los grandes productores como Estados Unidos de América, Canadá y Argentina para comercializar sus productos por parte de la Organización Mundial de Comercio. Pero sobre todo, se trata de hacer un análisis global sobre el principio de precautoriedad que afecta diversos intereses jurídicos y económicos, de necesaria existencia por considerarse como un derecho fundamental el derecho a un medioambiente sano. Palabras clave: biogenética, seguridad, diversidad biológica. * Profesor de la Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas y candidato a doctor por la Universidad de Dalhousie. * Nota: Debido que la traducción es automática podrá ser inexacta o contener errores.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".