Protocolo de Cartagena sobre bioseguridad: interacciones entre el Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica y la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is an international agreement (adopted on 29 January 2000 as a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity) that addresses the potential adverse effects of living modified organisms. It focuses primarily on transboundary movements and is therefore relevant to international trade. It includes provisions on import decision-making, risk assessment and management, information-sharing, documentation, capacity-building, compliance, liability and redress, public awareness and participation, and socio-economic considerations. Given the scope of the Protocol, there may be cases where trade in living modified organisms also falls under the mandate of existing international bodies such as the OIE (World Organisation for Animal Health) and other standard-setting bodies. There could therefore be benefits from collaboration between the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Organisation for Animal Health on issues such as risk assessment and management, information-sharing, documentation requirements, and procedures related to unintentional transboundary movements. This paper reviews the key provisions of the Protocol and attempts to highlight areas of the agreement which are also of interest to various international bodies, particularly the OIE.
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 | 0.042 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.017 |
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".