MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399856991 · doi:10.33002/jelp040105

Evolution of Biodiversity Protection in the Framework of European Common Agricultural Policy

2024· article· en· W4399856991 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katarzyna Frączak-Banach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Law & Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommon Agricultural PolicyAgricultureContext (archaeology)Resistance (ecology)BiodiversityBusinessAgricultural policyAgricultural productivityEnvironmental planningNatural resourceNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Common Agricultural Policy has undergone continuous evolution over the years, moving from a narrow, production-oriented approach to an agriculture with holistic approach, in which agricultural activity is intended to be treated having harmonious and sustainable utilization and rational management of natural resources and components of nature. The goal of protecting biodiversity within the Common Agricultural Policy becomes increasingly visible with each successive financing period; yet its fulfilment encounters numerous difficulties, primarily due to the resistance of Member States to introducing far-reaching changes, as well as due to the resistance of agricultural environments considering the indicated changes as striking their interests. The aim of this article is to evaluate the legal solutions adopted within the framework of the Common Agricultural Policy, both in its initial period of validity and the period commencing from year 2000, when the focus on environmental issues became significantly more prominent. This article also evaluates the currently applicable financial perspective in the context of its potential for protecting biodiversity in agricultural activities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Law & PolicySame topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207