MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401656713 · doi:10.47348/salj/v141/i3a6

Realizing South Africa’s contribution to the global biodiversity framework’s area-based targets — The potential impact of new screening trends linked to strategic infrastructure projects, corridors and zones

2024· article· en· W4401656713 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander Paterson

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Law Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementRegional scienceBusinessGeographyPolitical scienceEcologyEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

South Africa supported the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in December 2022. Area-based conservation measures form the focus of its Target 3, which calls on countries to ensure that at least 30 per cent of their territory of high biodiversity value is effectively conserved and managed in protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures by 2030. South Africa will need to more than triple its current land coverage within these areas in the next six years to achieve this target, and it has mapped priority focus areas for expansion to enable it to do so. The government is concurrently seeking to facilitate the roll-out of certain strategic infrastructure projects (‘SIPs’) linked to renewable energy, electricity grid and gas pipeline infrastructure within certain identified strategic infrastructure corridors and zones. Heavy reliance is placed on environmental impact assessment (‘EIA’) screening processes to subject activities linked to these SIPs undertaken in these corridors and zones to fast-track EIA approval processes or exclusions. Overlaying the maps depicting land of high biodiversity value, which is vital for achieving Target 3, with those outlining the strategic infrastructure corridors and zones, highlights potential conflict. This article critically analyses whether the new screening processes and associated tweaks to the general EIA and approval process linked to the SIPs have the potential to manage and mitigate these potential conflicts. The analysis highlights several challenges linked both to their foundation (including reliance on strategic environmental assessments and screening tools) and the array of procedural safeguards embedded within them. Cumulatively, these challenges hold the potential to undermine South Africa’s efforts to realize Target 3.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Law JournalSame topicBioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207