INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE REFORM WITHIN THE UNITED NATIONS: SEEKING MORE SUSTAINABILITY TOWARDS AND BEYOND RIO + 20 EARTH ENVIRONMENT SUMMIT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Environmental Governance reform expected soon within the United Nations system is the main point of the 2012 Rio + 20 Summit Agenda. The challenge, as currently presented by the Consultative Group of Ministers on IEG, is to lay down the foundation leading to the establishment of a World Environment Organization able to produce efficiency in the coordination of the multitude of agencies which now belong to UNEP. This paper acknowledges the achievements of the Consultative Group of Ministers. It aims however to show that such an administrative reform may be able to improve IEG in terms of administration efficiency and accountability but has unfortunately a very limited effect in ensuring enough sustainability towards and beyond Rio + 20. It is therefore suggested the creation of a WEO with two key bodies able to bring in more sustainability. The first body is the WEO Scientific Body. Its mandate will be to measure and adopt sustainable standards, rates and limits of production or emission, methodologies and harmonization of methodologies on risks assessment and management, and any kind of sustainable indicators. The second is the WEO Disputes Settlement Body with a mission of implementing and applying the sustainable indicators measured and adopted by the WEO Scientific Body. This contribution to IEG improvement for more sustainability came to the conclusion that there are enough suitable conditions gathered and assets under UN current scientific activities for these changes to take place. It is therefore on the basis of such a potential to ensure more sustainability at the coming global environmental governance reform that this contribution calls for the political goodwill which is here presented as the main asset of sustainability in IEG.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".