MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582766743

Summary of the 5th Meeting of the Working Group on Review of Implementation and 18th Meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity: 16-28 June 2014

2014· article· en· W2582766743 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
T. Goldberg, T. Kantai, E. Kosolapova, S. Malan, Asterios Tsioumanis

Bibliographic record

VenueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBundesamt für UmweltBundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz, Bau und ReaktorsicherheitMinistry of EnvironmentNew Zealand Foreign Affairs and TradeEuropean CommissionInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsConvention on Biological DiversityDiversity (politics)Advice (programming)Engineering ethicsConventionEngineeringPolitical scienceComputer scienceBiodiversityLawEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CBD was adopted on 22 May 1992 and entered into force on 29 December 1993.There are currently 194 parties to the Convention, which aims to promote the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of its components, and fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.The COP is the governing body of the Convention.It is assisted by the SBSTTA, which is mandated, under CBD Article 25, to provide the COP with advice relating to the Convention's implementation.The WGRI was established by the COP in decision VII/30, paragraph 23, in 2004 to evaluate, report and review implementation of the Convention and its Strategic Plan.COP 1-4: At its first four meetings (1994)(1995)(1996)(1997)(1998), the COP set the general framework for the Convention's implementation by: establishing the SBSTTA and the Clearing-House Mechanism (CHM); designating the Global Environment Facility (GEF) as the interim financial mechanism; adopting a decision on marine and coastal biodiversity (the Jakarta Mandate); establishing the Open-ended Ad Hoc Working Group on Biosafety to elaborate a protocol on biosafety; establishing a Working Group on Article 8(j) (traditional knowledge) and a panel of experts on access and benefit sharing (ABS); and adopting a work programme on forest biodiversity and the Global Taxonomy Initiative (GTI).CARTAGENA PROTOCOL ON BIOSAFETY: Following six meetings of the Biosafety Working Group between 1996 and 1999, and the first Extraordinary Meeting of the COP (ExCOP) (February 1999, Cartagena, Colombia), delegates adopted the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety at a resumed ExCOP (January 2000, Montreal, Canada).The Protocol addresses the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms that may have an adverse effect on biodiversity, taking into account human health, with a specific focus on transboundary movements.COP 5: At its fifth meeting (May 2000, Nairobi, Kenya), the COP: adopted work programmes on dry and sub-humid lands, incentive measures, Article 8(j), and agricultural biodiversity; endorsed the description of, and operational guidance on, the ecosystem approach; and established a Working Group on ABS.COP 6: At its sixth meeting (April 2002, The Hague, the Netherlands), the COP adopted the Convention's Strategic Plan, including the target to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010.The meeting also adopted: an expanded work programme on forest biodiversity; the Bonn Guidelines on ABS; guiding principles for IAS; the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation (GSPC); and a work programme for the GTI.COP 7: At its seventh meeting (February 2004, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), the COP adopted work programmes on mountain biodiversity, protected areas, and technology transfer and cooperation, and mandated the ABS Working Group to initiate negotiations on an international regime on ABS.The COP also established the WGRI, and adopted: a decision to review implementation of the Convention, its Strategic Plan and progress towards achieving the 2010 target; the Akw: Kon Guidelines for cultural, environmental and social impact assessments; the Addis Ababa Principles and Guidelines for

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam)Same topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207