Business, Biodiversity and New ′Fields′ of conservation: The world conservation congress and the renegotiation of organisational order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
definite absence of 'singularity'. 1 More importantly, Kantner's piece is notable because it serves to communicate two of the primary messages that the convener of the conference-the IUCN Secretariat-sought to put into public circulation: that it is time for the conservation movement to seek out and work with 'new types of partners', -code for deepening interconnections with the private sector; and that the IUCN membership is unified in this pursuit. 2That a journalist could identify these markedly political messages early on in the WCC is not particularly surprising. 3Indeed, the purpose of this paper is to analyse the role of the WCC as a vehicle through which certain actors negotiate a new organisational order, reproducing the pseudo-social networks that are beginning to resemble, what Peter Haas (1992) and others have called, an epistemic community-directed through interaction among a set of common individuals who physically and ideologically migrate across the once well-defined boundaries separating governmental agencies, non-governmental organisations
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".