Impacts of International and National Regulatory Frameworks on Guaranteeing Farmers’ Right in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As guardians of agrobiodiversity, farmers must have their rights to these resources recognized, rewarded, and supported by their unparalleled contributions in the development of landraces of cultivated plants and domestic animals. Thus, it is worth questioning to what extent multilateral treaties that deal with the use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture would ensure the protection of these rights. With this objective, we evaluated legal and administrative multilateral, and national mechanisms for the protection of Farmers’ Rights—FR regarding the sharing of benefits generated by the access to genetic resources and its implications for the conservation of agrobiodiversity. We conducted analyzes of official documents on norms, treaties, decrees, and regulations which enabled the understanding of the elements constituted by the agrobiodiversity conservation system. We demonstrated that the evaluated international regimes do not guarantee the FR but propose that the National States take decisions to implement them according to the needs of the country. The State, the competent bodies, and the Brazilian RD&I organizations must take effective measures and review the laws that should regulate FR, enabling the real participation of farmers in decision-making on conservation and the sharing of benefits derived from agrobiodiversity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".