Bibliographic record
Abstract
The twelfth Conference of the Parties (COP-12) to the CBD met in Pyeongchang, Korea, on 6–17 October. Several decisions from COP-12 expressly touched marine and coastal resources, particularly Decisions XII/22 and XII/23. Decision XII/22 concerned ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAS) that are being designated via a process established in Decisions X729 and XI/17. To date, seven regional workshops (Southern Indian Ocean, Eastern Tropical and Temperate Pacific, North Pacific, South-Eastern Atlantic, Arctic, North-West Atlantic, and Mediterranean) have described EBSAS using criteria established by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA). Criteria include uniqueness, special importance for life history stages of species, importance for threatened or endangered species or their habitats, vulnerability or fragility, biological productivity, biological diversity, and naturalness). Decision XII/22 requests the CBD executive secretary to include the summary reports for the listed EBSAS in the EBSAS repository and to submit them before COP-13 to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to study issues related to conservation and sustainable use of these resources in the high seas. The decision stressed that the EBSA process does not affect the sovereign rights of coastal states, rather it is strictly a scientific and technical exercise. It also called the CBD executive secretary, contracting parties, and governments to continue to designate EBSAS in accordance with the established scientific criteria. The decision also encouraged the use of marine spatial planning, network of marine protected areas, impact assessments, and other area-based management tools to promote enhanced conservation and sustainable use of the EBSAS. Decision XII/22 originated via SBSTTA Recommendation XVIII/3 adopted in the eighteenth SBSTTA meeting on 23–28 June in Montreal, 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.031 |
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".