Wings Without Borders: The Case for a Migratory Insect Treaty to Aid Monarch Butterflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wings Without Borders: The Case for a Migratory Insect Treaty 713 are well aware that if honeybees faced extinction, our food supply would be in a dire state.But many insects besides bees pollinate and contribute to modern society and our way of life.7 The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) in particular still remains a wonder of science and a beauty of nature, in addition to being a pollinator.These butterflies migrate over 2,000 miles from Mexico to Canada over multiple generations, and researchers still do not know how the monarchs navigate their journey.8 Birds and mammals learn migratory routes from their parents, but butterflies do not live long enough to teach their offspring how to migrate.9 The monarch butterfly population has steadily declined since 1994.10 This is due primarily to three factors: (1) illegal logging in the Oyamel forests of Mexico, where the butterflies spend the winter; (2) a lack of milkweed plant hosts in the U.S. and Canada, possibly coupled with genetically modified crop effects; and (3) climate change.11 Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. have signed protective migratory bird treaties, and a similar treaty is necessary for migratory insects to prevent the decline of the monarch butterfly and species like it.This Note explores the current threats to monarch butterflies and how to remedy them through international law.Section II provides background on the monarch butterfly migration and threats to its population.Section III discusses current laws and treaties for other 7.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".