MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413026275 · doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2025.101557

New wine in old bottles? Key research gaps on neoliberal financing for biodiversity emerging from the Global Biodiversity Framework

2025· article· en· W4413026275 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pamela McElwee

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Environmental Sustainability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiodiversityKey (lock)BusinessWineFinanceEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningGeographyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsEcologyBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coming up with additional financing for biodiversity is a major goal of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), and neoliberal (or market-based) instruments have been proposed as key vehicles to raise this needed money. Lessons learned from the first generation of neoliberal financial instruments, including payments for environmental services and biodiversity offsets, can help to understand the research gaps and needs that surround newer tools, such as biodiversity credits. This article assesses what we know and what we do not about how neoliberal financing is likely to work in the post-GBF era.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Environmental SustainabilitySame topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207