Challenges and possible solutions to creating an achievable and effective Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Global biodiversity is in crisis as a result of human activity. This biodiversity crisis has been well documented by scientists, recognized by world leaders, politicians, businesses, and citizens. Both the biodiversity and climate crises need to be addressed now. 2020 was when this change was supposed to start, with the 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) meeting in Kunming, and the 26th Conference of Parties (COP26) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Glasgow, but both meetings were postponed. COP26 was held a year late (November 2021), while COP15 was split into two, with the first part held in Kunming in October 2021, and the second part scheduled for Montreal in December 2022. This meeting in Montreal – arguably the most important in the CBDs history – must agree on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), to reverse biodiversity loss. Failure to reach agreement in Montreal would ultimately be a failure of us all, with irreversible consequences for life on earth. Yet, with three months before the final deadline only 20% of text and two targets are agreed. This paper reviews the factors hindering progress on the agreement and suggests possible solutions.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it