MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Editorial

2017· editorial· en· W4235959392 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Louisa Denier, Willemien Du Plessis

Bibliographic record

VenuePotchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad · 2017
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIUCN Red ListLegislationEcosystem servicesLawPolitical scienceEnvironmental lawPresentation (obstetrics)Corporate governanceLibrary scienceManagementEcologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On Sunday 3 July 2011 the Research Committee of the IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, the IUCN Environmental Law Centre, Bonn and the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law organised a pre-conference workshop entitled “Towards the legal recognition and governance of ecosystem services” at Mpekweni, Eastern Cape, South Africa. At this workshop, papers were delivered on various aspects of ecosystem services. These included an introduction to ecosystem services from a legal perspective by Alejandro Iza of the IUCN Environmental Law Centre, and an introduction from a scientific perspective, by Christo Marais of the South African Department of Water Affairs. Justice Antonio Benjamin from the High Court of Brazil gave a presentation on Jurisprudential experiences in Brasilia and the importance of the legal recognition of ecosystem services; Alistair Rieu Clarke (University of Dundee) spoke on “The 1997 UN Watercourses Convention and Ecosystem Services: Can a Combined Reading Ensure that International Watercourses are Utilised in an Equitable and Reasonable Manner?”; Jamie Benidickson (University of Ottawa) presented the new IUCN “Guidelines for Protected Areas Legislation” and David Hodas (Widener University) gave a presentation entitled “Seeing into Law's Blindspot: Ecosystem Energy Services”. The discussions during the workshop enabled participants to realise that there were numerous angles to the topic of ecosystem services and that the discussion had not been fully explored, in particular concerning the human livelihoods aspect and the intricate relationship between ecosystem services and rights. It was therefore decided that there would be an open call for papers for publication on these issues, which would contribute to furthering this important discussion in the light of the major world conferences that would have taken place from 2012 onwards.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0030.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePotchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese RegsbladSame topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207