MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2797942156 · doi:10.1080/09583157.2018.1460317

Biological control and the Nagoya Protocol on access and benefit sharing – a case of effective due diligence

2018· article· en· W2797942156 on OpenAlexfundno aff
David Smith, Hariet L. Hinz, Joseph Mulema, Philip Weyl, Matthew J. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueBiocontrol Science and Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate-General for International Cooperation and DevelopmentAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDepartment for International DevelopmentDirektion für Entwicklung und ZusammenarbeitMinistry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of ChinaDepartment for International Development, UK Government
KeywordsBusinessDue diligenceProtocol (science)NegotiationLegislatureBest practiceLegislationControl (management)Process (computing)Political scienceComputer scienceFinanceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological control agents must be collected and utilised in compliance with the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) which is being implemented independently by each country that is signatory to the Protocol. By March 2018, 50 countries had legislation in place with an additional 54 designing their Legislative, Administrative or Policy Measures having become Party to the Protocol. Apart from the problem of dealing with the many different mechanisms countries are putting in place, it is often difficult to find relevant information on the ABS Clearing House and to access and receive appropriate responses from the National Focal Points or Competent National Authorities. We feel that a lot of time is lost on both sides (National authorities and scientists seeking information), and the process would benefit from streamlining. Also, open questions remain, such as how to deal with the generation digital sequence information and what specific activities are considered utilisation, especially for biological control. CABI has pro-actively developed an ABS policy and best practices for its staff to try and comply with the Nagoya Protocol. In addition, CABI has started negotiations with several provider countries, beginning with its member countries, to have its ABS policy and best practices recognised, considering the non-monetary benefits typically associated with biological control. The Nagoya Protocol was born out of the necessity to guarantee the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resources. However, it should not hinder the development of best practice solutions to protect exactly these genetic resources from threats like invasive species. It is important that research and development that addresses global societal challenges are not impeded and that science and its output are recognised as a way to preserve and use genetic resources in an equitable way.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.122
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.202
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1220.202
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.022
Scholarly communication0.0190.017
Open science0.0060.013
Research integrity0.0430.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.010

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiocontrol Science and TechnologySame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207