Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year 1987 produced two important landmarks in the bringing together of the environment and development issues. First came the publication of the Brundtland Commission’s report, Our Common Future , which set out the common concerns, challenges and endeavours which would be involved in achieving sustainable development. Secondly, there was the Montreal Protocol, perhaps the first international agreement to adopt concrete measures for tackling a global environmental problem, with provisions for regular review and for taking account of the special needs of developing countries. Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration was accepted verbatim, as were the Convention on Biological Diversity&s;s Principle, although it caused the UK and some others considerable anxiety. Article 20 on financial resources was painfully agreed, line by line, leaving only Article 21 on the financial mechanism. In 1994 the UK government published its Biodiversity Strategy setting out the framework for a range of conservation actions in Britain.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.010 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".