The contribution of international forums apart from UNESCO in achieving the objectives of the Convention on the Diversity of Cultural Expressions in the digital environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The UNESCO 2005 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions recognizes the dual nature (cultural and economic) of cultural activities, goods, and services, as well as the sovereign rights of states to adopt policies to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions on their territory. The challenges posed by digital technologies on the diversity of cultural expressions led to the adoption in 2017 of “Operational Guidelines on the Implementation of the Convention in the Digital Environment”. These guidelines underscore, among others, the importance for parties to promote the objectives and principles of the Convention at the international level when engaging in other forums then UNESCO– as provided for in Article 21 of the Convention– to protect and promote the diversity of cultural expressions in the digital environment. This chapter seeks to demonstrate how international forums apart from UNESCO can contribute to pursuing the Convention’s objectives in the digital environment. At a time when many international forums are attempting to regulate multiple digital phenomena, parties to the Convention must ensure the decisions taken within them do not go against the diversity of cultural expressions, which implies promoting the objectives and principles of the treaty when necessary.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".