MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905231441 · doi:10.1017/9781108557122.010

Access and Benefit-Sharing in Canada

2018· book-chapter· en· W2905231441 on OpenAlexaffabout
Freedom-Kai Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvention on Biological DiversityOperationalizationIndigenousInclusion (mineral)EmpowermentCorporate governancePolitical scienceDiversity (politics)ConventionBusinessPublic relationsSociologyLawBiodiversitySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through a review of international obligations under the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD), the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization (NP) and with reference to other instruments, this chapter surveys national measures related to access and benefit-sharing (ABS) in Brazil, Namibia and Australia. It identifies insights from those experiences as the basis of policy recommendations to shape the existing and evolving ABS framework in Canada. Operationalization of ABS in Canada requires the effective involvement of Indigenous peoples grounded in mutual respect. Empowerment of Indigenous governance of genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge (TK), integration of adequate administrative review to evaluate and monitor utilization, facilitation of fair and equitable benefit-sharing and the inclusion of a disclosure of origin requirement in the patent framework provide areas of opportunity to support the implementation of the NP and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in Canada.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207