The uptake of the biosphere integrity planetary boundary concept into national and international environmental policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The biosphere integrity planetary boundary was, at least partly, developed to aid policymakers in addressing the dangerous decline of Earth’s biodiversity. However, just over a decade since its origination the extent and speed of its adoption as a policy tool remains unclear. Here, we review the uptake of the biosphere integrity boundary into environmental policy at national and international scales, to determine the rapidity at which it has become embedded. We analyzed environmental reports published since 2009 by national governments in Europe and North America, and international reports by global biodiversity conventions and bodies. Our study found that over the last decade the framework has been referenced relatively infrequently at the international scale, though seen greater uptake at national scales, particularly in Europe. Assessing whether this represents a rapid policy uptake remains challenging due to the paucity of comparable studies on rates for analogous concepts. However, our findings suggest that the biosphere integrity planetary boundary has become relatively quickly and increasingly embedded into some national policy.
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 | 0.029 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".