Sustainable Seabed Mining—The Phase 1 Environmental Draft Standards and Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The oceans are home to a rich diversity of plant and animal life and also provide a source of food and marine resources that drive economies. Climate change and pollution are changing ocean dynamics and the ability of the oceans to support life. Seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction will add to the ocean’s stressors and could cause severe environmental damage. The International Seabed Authority (‘ISA’) is mandated to manage access to and benefits from the seabed, its subsoil, and mineral resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction (the ‘Area’). Although the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea sets out the legal framework for developing the Area and its resources, it does so in broad terms and leaves substantial gaps. These gaps include the scope of activities in the Area, the interrelationship of international obligations, the division of responsibilities between the ISA and sponsoring states, and the regulation of the mining system in situ. To partially fill these gaps, the ISA has drafted a set of ‘Phase 1’ Standards and Guidelines under the Draft Regulations on Exploitation of Mineral Resources in the Area. This paper investigates and critiques five environmental Draft Standards from a precautionary and comparative law perspective. Phase 1 standards and guidelines should adopt a more rigorous interpretation of the precautionary principle. Additional recommendations include creating enhanced governance processes and incorporating an ecosystem-based framework for regional environmental assessments and management plans not present in Draft Standards. This research will assist academics, practitioners, governments and the ISA with policies and strategies to enhance environmental and social protections from seabed mining.
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 | 0.045 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".