MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625946549

Mutually supportive implementation of the Plant Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol A report on ‘The International Treaty and the Nagoya Protocol : A tandem workshop for National Focal Points’, 3 - 9 June 2014, FAO, Rome, Italy

2015· report· en· W2625946549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Halewood

Bibliographic record

VenueCGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research) · 2015
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreatyProtocol (science)Antarctic treatyPolitical scienceMontreal ProtocolGeographyLibrary scienceComputer scienceLawMedicineMeteorology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2014, Bioversity International and the ABS Capacity Building Initiative led a series of interactions on the mutually supportive implementation of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). These interactions included a survey among national focal points of both international agreements in 15 African countries, a four-day workshop, and a follow up analysis of inputs provided by workshop participants. This publication is the report of the four-day workshop held on 3-6 June 2014, at FAO, Rome, with 75 participants, including experts and representatives of stakeholder groups (farmers, academia, governments, regional governmental organizations), national focal points for the CBD, the Nagoya Protocol and the ITPGRFA, and members of the Secretariats of the CBD and the ITPGRFA. The core of these events were the ‘tandems’: pairs or small teams of national focal points for the Nagoya Protocol and the ITPGRFA from a single country working together. The workshop included presentations by independent experts and stakeholders whose daily activities are affected by access and benefit-sharing (ABS) regulations, and discussions on small working groups on hypothetical scenarios that evidenced overlaps and grey areas in the implementation of the ITPRGFA and the Nagoya Protocol. The ‘tandem’ approach and the work through hypothetical scenarios led to interesting reflections and proposals on the mutually supportive implementation of both international agreements. A publication that draws on the scenarios and the discussions held at the workshop was released in English, French and Spanish in 2017, Russian in 2018 and Arabic in 2019, with the title “Mutually supportive implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the Plant Treaty: Scenarios for consideration by national focal points and other interested stakeholders”.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.322 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCGSPace A Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research)Same topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207