The practice of protecting World Natural Heritage sites in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparative analysis of the organizational and legal foundations of the protection of World Natural Heritage sites in Canada and the Russian Federation (on the example of Lake Baikal) is presented. The legal positions of the World Heritage Committee on the implementation of international obligations for the preservation of World Natural Heritage sites are analyzed. The problem of formal definiteness of the boundaries of World Heritage sites and awareness of them by the public and government bodies is highlighted. The question of the expediency of excluding the territories of settlements from the World Heritage sites is being investigated. The approaches of the World Heritage Committee to the implementation of extractive industry and hydropower projects both within the boundaries of World Heritage sites and in adjacent territories are considered. As a way of implementing the international legal regime for the protection of unique natural objects, the regime of the buffer zone of the World Heritage site receives a positive assessment, however, there is a lack of elaboration of this concept. Proposals are formulated on possible measures of an intra-national nature aimed at solving issues of protection of territories bordering on World Heritage sites (transfer to the federal level of the decision on the creation of protected areas in order to fulfill international obligations; formation of a protected zone of the World Heritage site). The importance of environmental assessment as a standard of international legal protection of unique natural objects and the need for its more detailed regulation in national legislation are stated. Attention is focused on the position of the World Heritage Committee on the issue of taking into account the views of the local population and indigenous peoples in the management and protection of World Natural Heritage sites.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".