El procedimiento de no cumplimiento del Protocolo de Cartagena sobre seguridad en la biotecnología: ¿Un mecanismo eficaz?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, adopted the 29th Jaunary 2000, foresees the establishment of ‘procedures and institutional mechanisms to promote compliance with the provisions of this Protocol and to address cases of non-compliance’ (article 34). On this basis, taking the ‘Noncompliance Procedure’ of the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer as a model, the first Meeting of the Parties to the Cartagena Protocol adopted such a procedure in 2004 (decision BS-I/7), as an autonomous mechanism to promote compliance with the Parties’ commitments. The basically assisting functions that are inherent to this mechanism have been entrusted to a subsidiary body to the Meeting of the Parties, the Compliance Committee, which exerts its powers according to a simple and cooperative procedure. Nevertheless, to the date no Party has resorted to this mechanism in order to solve any issues of non-compliance. Based on the formal assessment of the mechanism, this article tries to elucidate the causes for this situation, paying particular attention to structural deficiencies within the mechanism, and to the vis atractiva exerted by exogenous enforcement mechanism
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 | 0.041 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".