Coral reef protection is fundamental to human rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intensifying loss of coral reefs from global climate change and local stressors has seen international commitments targeted at conservation and repair, for example the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Fulfilling these targets requires decisions to be made on where, when, and how to act, ultimately dictating where limited resources will be deployed. Every choice on action or inaction toward our ocean has direct and indivisible consequences not only for the health of marine ecosystems but also for the health of humans, particularly those who directly depend on marine habitats, both culturally and economically. The well-being of the environment, humans, and animals is interlinked, co-dependent, and even co-produced, as has already been acknowledged by One Health approaches, which endorse a cross- and trans-disciplinary view to health. Coral reefs epitomie how tightly intertwined ecosystem health and the fate of the human and nonhuman communities that depend on them are. A field that thus far remains poorly considered is a human rights-based approach to coral reef protection. A human rights-based approach implements human rights obligations, including the recently affirmed right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, while embedding principles of accountability, nondiscrimination, participation, and empowerment for local and Indigenous communities that ensure effectiveness and meaningful stakeholder engagement. Tying the protection of coral reef ecosystems to human rights emphasises the importance of healthy ecosystems to human well-being and thus the inevitable connection between nonhuman and human life. The general failure to consider coral reef protection through a human rights-based approach is a missed opportunity to expedite reef protection while simultaneously advancing climate justice for both humans and nonhumans.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.007 |
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".