Interaction Management by Partnerships: The Case of Biodiversity and Climate Change
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
This article examines the contributions that partnerships make to interaction management. Our conceptualization of interaction management builds on earlier contributions to the literature on regimes and governance. The article focuses on the interactions among the biodiversity and climate change governance systems, since these systems interact intensively on the issues of biofuels and forests (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation—REDD+). The article shows that seven partnerships actively manage the interactions by fulfilling several critical interaction management functions. Their main contributions include creating markets for sustainable biofuels through the development of certification standards and creating markets for “multiple benefit” REDD+. Although the partnerships improve interactions on case-by-case bases, they fail to fundamentally improve existing interactions between the biodiversity and climate change governance systems. Improved meta-governance and public-private interplay are necessary for more effective interaction management and, more generally, the effective governance of sustainable development.
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) | 0.000 | 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