Achievements of the Negotiation on the Intergovernmental Committee Under the Nagoya Protocol (ICNP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At CBD COP- 10 convened on 29 October 2010,in Nagoya of Japan,a decision was made to establish an Open-ended Ad Hoc Intergovernmental Committee( ICNP),which is charged with the responsibility of preparing for the convention of COP /MOP- 1 for the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit-sharing(ABS) to discuss the issue of fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. ICNP had already three meetings(ICNP- 1,ICNP- 2 and ICNP- 3) held in June 2011,July 2012 and February 2014,separately,in Canada,India and Korea,discussing problems that may arise when the Protocol goes into effect for implementation. After scrutinizing the viewpoints of various signatory countries and governments of some other countries about some major topics,such as two-year program budgeting,rules of procedure for COP /MOP,global multilateral benefit-sharing mechanisms,ABS information clearing house,capacity building,consciousness raising,procedures and mechanisms for compliance,monitoring and reporting,and model contract clauses,etc.,the paper has summarized progresses of the meetings,analyzed comprehensively achievements of the negotiations on these topics,and talked in depth about positive effects of the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol may generate and challenges it may face.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".