The Comparison of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture and the Nagoya Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture( hereinafter with the treaty)and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Sharing from Their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity(hereinafter with the protocol)are both important international legal instruments in regard with access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources which have established their own access and benefit-sharing mechanism. China has not ratified both instruments due to the concerns about regulatory overlap,as well as the lack of understanding regarding the status quo of the protection and utilization of genetic resources. This article compares the treaty and the protocol with objective,scope,the framework and modality of access and benefit-sharing,and beneficiaries of two legal instruments. The possibilities of the ratification of the treaty and the protocol are analyzed based on the status quo review of the conservation and utilization of genetic resources in China:(1)both international legal instruments should be ratified;(2)the conservation of crop wild relatives should be strengthened to halt the outflow of resources,while implementing the treaty;(3)monitoring and evaluating the utilization capabilities of genetic resources domestically,the revision proposal of the protocol should be raised as appropriate time while implementing the protocol.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".