On the Enlightenment of Wetland Protection Systems in Some Foreign Countries to China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wetlands, as one of the three major natural ecosystems on earth, play a crucial role in conserving water sources, protecting the environment, addressing climate change, and preserving biodiversity. To accelerate the development of an ecological civilization and enhance the protection and development of wetlands, China has introduced the "People′s Republic of China Wetland Protection Law," marking the start of a new legal journey in wetland conservation. Considering the current status of domestic wetland protection legislation, this law has shortcomings in areas such as wetland ecological compensation systems, wetland development permitting systems, and social public participation systems, making it difficult to effectively achieve sustainable protection and utilization of wetlands in practice. This paper, by introducing wetland protection legislation and policies from countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, briefly analyzes the specific institutional provisions related to wetlands in these countries. It aims to provide beneficial references for China′s wetland protection, thereby improving China′s relevant legal systems for wetland conservation and providing a strong legal basis for wetland protection efforts in China.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it