Pathways for transformative change in biodiversity politics: Examining the significance of the Global Biodiversity Framework’s ‘Considerations’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the ‘Considerations’ that are intended to underpin the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). With so little time to meet the 2030 mission of transforming conservation approaches and curbing biodiversity decline, we reflect on the opportunities the Considerations present for transformative governance in biodiversity conservation. We discuss how contrasting worldviews and foundations of knowledge shape the Considerations, and inform the Framework more broadly, and highlight where areas of ambiguity between anthropocentric and nature-centred approaches arise. We contend that if the global community is to meaningfully change the trajectory of species extinctions and biodiversity loss, transformative changes are needed in the values held and expressed towards nature in political, economic, and social spheres. We conclude by suggesting implementation tools and processes to help foster the meaningful integration of the more boundary-pushing Considerations in wider biodiversity governance and practice.
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 | 0.035 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".