Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biocultural diversity is the ever-evolving and irreplaceable sum total of all living organisms inhabiting the Earth. It plays a significant role in sustainable productivity and ecosystem services that benefit humanity and is closely allied with human cultural diversity. Despite its essentiality, biodiversity is seriously threatened by the insatiable and inequitable human exploitation of the Earth's resources. One of the benefits of biodiversity is its utilization in crop improvement, including cropping improvement (agronomic cultivation practices) and genetic improvement (plant breeding). Crop improvement has tended to decrease agricultural biodiversity since the origins of agriculture, but awareness of this situation can reverse this negative trend. Cropping improvement can strive to use more diverse cultivars and a broader complement of crops on farms and in landscapes. It can also focus on underutilized crops, including legumes. Genetic improvement can access a broader range of biodiversity sources and, with the assistance of modern breeding tools like genomics, can facilitate the introduction of additional characteristics that improve yield, mitigate environmental stresses, and restore, at least partially, lost crop biodiversity. The current legal framework covering biodiversity includes national intellectual property and international treaty instruments, which have tended to limit access and innovation to biodiversity. A global system of access and benefit sharing, encompassing digital sequence information, would benefit humanity but remains an elusive goal. The Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework sets forth an ambitious set of targets and goals to be accomplished by 2030 and 2050, respectively, to protect and restore biocultural diversity, including agrobiodiversity.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".