Ocean defenders and human rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two pressing and overlapping marine policy issues are related to human rights in the ocean and the situation of ocean defenders. Human rights issues and violations are on the rise in the ocean due to the ongoing, rapid and unchecked escalation of anthropogenic activities in marine and coastal environments, which increasingly undermine the fundamental, civil and political, economic, social, cultural or environmental rights of individuals and groups. In this context, it is essential to recognize, support and safeguard the individuals, groups or communities who are mobilizing, advocating or taking action to protect the marine environment, coastal and oceanic territories, and associated human rights from existential threats. Yet, these ‘ocean defenders’ often face marginalization, intimidation, criminalization, threats, violence and murders. The failure to protect the human rights of coastal populations and ocean defenders needs to be urgently rectified by states, the private sector and civil society. We identify six specific areas of urgent action to protect human rights in and related to marine and coastal environments and to support and safeguard ocean defenders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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".