The Recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ and Community Traditional Knowledge in International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today I want to explore some of the international law-making efforts with respect to indigenous and traditional environmental knowledge. My work over the past three years has involved the study of the ongoing efforts underway to implement state obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity ("CBD"), and the related efforts of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), to recognize, protect, and compensate for the contributions of indigenous and traditional communities' knowledge, innovations, and practices to the preservation and maintenance of biological diversity. This is a fascinating process of international lawmaking and an increasingly important field of global politics, which may or may not result in the establishment of new intellectual property rights. Perhaps more significantly, these efforts have served to expose the shortcomings and inadequacies of existing regimes of intellectual property, contributing to a crisis of legitimacy in the world intellectual property system. WIPO has recognized this to a degree, by acknowledging that the organization faces new criticism, questions, and inquiries because in the process of developing new international standards, many nations and groups felt excluded. Thus, according to statements made by the Deputy Director General, Geoffrey Sau Kuk Yu, WIPO has recognized that it must reach out to "new beneficiaries" and "move downstream into civil society" to engage users of intellectual properties as well as creators of new kinds. Only if groups feel they are a part of the dialogue and they have some stake in the system, he acknowledged, will they support it rather than undermine it.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".