Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recalling its decision 14/34, in which it adopted the preparatory process for the development of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework and decided to establish an open-ended intersessional working group to support its preparation, Noting also the outcomes of the first, 1 second, 2 third 3 fourth 4 and fifth meetings 5 of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, of the regional and thematic consultations and workshops conducted based on decision 14/34 and of the intersessional work conducted on digital sequence information on genetic resources, Noting the outcomes of the eleventh meeting of the Ad Hoc Open-ended Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions, of the twenty-third and twenty-fourth meetings of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice and of the third meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation, Expressing its gratitude to the following Governments of [..] for hosting these consultations, as well as for their financial contributions, Expressing its gratitude to the Co-Chairs of the Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, Mr. Basile van Havre (Canada) and Mr. Francis Ogwal (Uganda), for supporting the development of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, Welcoming the submissions by Parties, other Governments, indigenous peoples and local communities, United Nations organizations and programmes, other multilateral environmental agreements, subnational governments, cities and other local authorities, intergovernmental organizations, nongovernmental organizations, women's groups, youth groups, the business and finance community, the scientific community, academia, faith-based organizations, representatives of sectors related to or 1 CBD/WG2020/1/5. 2 CBD/WG2020/2/4. 3 CBD/WG2020/3/5.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.135 | 0.092 |
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".