MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791710379 · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2018.01.007

Investments to reverse biodiversity loss are economically beneficial

2017· article· en· W2791710379 on OpenAlexaff
U. Rashid Sumaila, Carlos M. Rodriguez, Maria Schultz, Ravi Sharma, Tristan D. Tyrrell, Hillary Masundire, A. Damodaran, Mariana Bellot-Rojas, Rina Maria P. Rosales, Tae Yong Jung, Valerie Hickey, Tone Solhaug, James Vause, Jamison Ervin, Sarah E. Smith, Matt Rayment

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGoverno BrasilGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsConvention on Biological DiversityBiodiversityContext (archaeology)BusinessDiversity (politics)Biodiversity conservationNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementSustainable developmentEnvironmental planningEconomicsGeographyEcologyPolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reversing biodiversity loss by 2020 is the objective of the 193 countries that are party to the global Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). In this context, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets 2020 were agreed upon by the CBD in Nagoya, Japan in 2010 and this was followed by asking a high-level panel to make an assessment of the financial resources needed to achieve these targets globally. First, we review the literature on the costs and benefits of meeting the Aichi Targets. Second, we provide a summary of the main conclusions of the CBD High-Level Panel (HLP) 1 and 2 on the Global Assessment of the Resources for Implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020. A key conclusion of the HLP is that the monetary and non-monetary benefits of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use to be achieved by implementing the Aichi Targets would significantly outweigh the amount of investments required.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.171 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Environmental SustainabilitySame topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207