MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415321316 · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104246

Local-global linkages in biodiversity governance: The regime complex of the convention on biological diversity agenda for nature pledges

2025· article· en· W4415321316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Van Thi Hai Nguyen, Truc-Ly Le-Huynh, Simon Gadola, Gretchen Walters, Margaret Awuor Owuor

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of FinlandEuropean CommissionSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungBiodiversa+University of BernJoint Programming Initiative Water challenges for a changing worldNaturvårdsverketNational Science Foundation
KeywordsConvention on Biological DiversityBiodiversityCorporate governanceNegotiationGlobal governanceInternational regimeTransformative learningLeverage (statistics)Convention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trajectory of global biodiversity governance, culminating in the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), reflects a pivot toward transformative change through a “whole-of-society” (WoS) approach. This approach integrates traditional multilateral negotiations with various self-organizing governance initiatives across the public, civil, and business spheres, forming additional layers within a biodiversity regime complex. While praised for its flexibility, horizontal linkages, and adaptability, an open question remains: Has this regime complex effectively delivered on its transformative promises? Using 718 biodiversity pledges submitted to the Action Agenda for Nature under the Convention on Biological Diversity—representing 1086 actors and 4109 connections—we applied social network and discourse analysis to map dynamic actor interactions and examine how they shape regime dynamics. Our findings reveal the emergence of a “middle-out” governance space, where non-state and sub-national actors act as intermediaries linking global commitments to local implementation. By visualizing the diffusion of participation, we identify potential leverage points where these actors can step forward as agents of change within the biodiversity regime. Yet despite these advances, network fragmentation persists—marked by duplication, misalignment, and weak cross-scale connectivity. Divergent discourses and weak ties between biodiversity status and actions further hinder systemic coherence. We argue that the regime complex must be reconceptualized beyond horizontal linkages to include vertical dimensions of governance. This study contributes to emerging network approaches in global biodiversity governance by identifying governance gaps and highlighting opportunities for systemic transformation. Strengthening alignment across levels and empowering middle-out actors are essential steps toward translating ambitious global biodiversity goals into effective, inclusive, and locally grounded actions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & PolicySame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207