Traditional Knowledge in the Time of Neo-Liberalism: Access and Benefit-Sharing Regimes in India and Bhutan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a neoliberal world, traditional knowledge (TK) of biodiversity possessed by Indigenous and Local Communities (ILCs) in the global South has become a valuable "commodity" or "bio-resource," necessitating the setting up of harmonized ground rules (international and national) in the form of an access and benefit-sharing regime to facilitate its exchange in the world market. Despite criticisms that a regime with a neo-liberal orientation is antithetical to the normative ethos of ILCs, it could also offer a chance for developing countries and ILCs to generate revenue for socioeconomic development—to which they are gradually becoming open, but only under fair and equitable terms. Based on this context, this article proposes to look into the legal and policy frameworks and institutional regimes governing access and benefit sharing of TK associated with biological resources in two countries of South Asia: India and Bhutan. The article seeks to examine how such regimes are reconciling the imperatives of a neo-liberal economy with providing a just and equitable framework for ILCs and TK holders, which is truly participatory and not top-down.
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) | 0.000 | 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".