MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392395619 · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-40609-6_7

UNFCCC CoP26: Key Outcomes for Soil Management

2024· book-chapter· en· W4392395619 on OpenAlexaff
Fabiano de Andrade Correa, Margret Vidar, Tejas Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational yearbook of soil law and policy · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeclarationContext (archaeology)Climate changePolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Declining soil health does not often reach the frontpages of newspapers or dominate the news cycle. Yet the importance of soil health cannot be understated. The health of soil everywhere is threatened by climate change. Unsustainable soil policy and use can contribute to the advancing of climate change, whereas sustainable soil management can and should be part of the solution(s). Against this background, this brief paper aims to expand on the value of soil. After establishing this context for the purposes of the climate conversation, the paper expands on the international legal frameworks on soil and its place within the international climate change regime. From this, it discusses key advancements made at the UNFCCC CoP26 held in Glasgow, Scotland in 2021, with a particular focus on the Korovia Joint Work in Agriculture, the Global Methane Targets, and the Glasgow Declaration on Forests and land use. We conclude by looking forward to what might happen at the upcoming UNFCCC CoP27 in Sharm-el-Sheikh, Egypt in 2022.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational yearbook of soil law and policySame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207