The critical role of governments in benefit sharing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The critical role of governments in benefit sharing Dominic Muyldermans and Frank Michiels outline the key role governments can play in making a new multilateral mechanism for benefit sharing a success. The fair and equitable sharing of benefits from using biodiversity is one of the key objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD, 1992). (1) In 2010, a supplementary agreement to the CBD was adopted, the ‘Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing’, (2) which aimed to establish more concrete guidelines for access to genetic resources and the sharing of benefits. Due to a continued lack of meaningful benefit sharing and the shifting nature of biological research and innovation, moving away from access to physical genetic resources towards DNA sequences accessed in public, open-access databases or generated on the computer, there have been increasing calls for benefit sharing from the use of ‘Digital Sequence Information’ (DSI). As a result, at COP15 at the end of 2022, the Parties decided to establish, as part of the Kunming- Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, (3) a multilateral mechanism for benefit-sharing from the use of DSI, including a global fund. (4) How this mechanism will function and be implemented has yet to be determined. This article aims to emphasise the key role governments can play in making this new mechanism a success.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".