The Aichi Biodiversity Targets: achievements for marine conservation and priorities beyond 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2010 the Conference of the Parties (COP) for the Convention on Biological Diversity revised and updated a Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, which included the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Here a group of early career researchers mentored by senior scientists, convened as part of the 4th World Conference on Marine Biodiversity, reflects on the accomplishments and shortfalls under four of the Aichi Targets considered highly relevant to marine conservation: target 6 (sustainable fisheries), 11 (protection measures), 15 (ecosystem restoration and resilience) and 19 (knowledge, science and technology). We conclude that although progress has been made towards the targets, these have not been fully achieved for the marine environment by the 2020 deadline. The progress made, however, lays the foundations for further work beyond 2020 to work towards the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity. We identify key priorities that must be addressed to better enable marine biodiversity conservation efforts moving forward.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".