Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiversity conservation calls for a revolutionary approach to our relationship with nature and the living world. But it also requires completely rethinking the way we develop international policies and strategies. While these instruments must deal with a highly complex reality, they are too often viewed as simple action plans. Measures and initiatives that are focused on mainly technical solutions eventually result in unfortunate setbacks when the often unpredictable and ever-changing dynamics of life come into play. The United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP15) was held in 2022, and despite the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, it failed to produce a truly innovative approach to international 'strategy'. It is therefore more necessary than ever to reconsider the official diagnosis that underpins international action. Although certainly difficult, this can be done by mobilising a wide range of expertise from different scientific communities. Drawing on numerous examples and a wealth of research from the humanities, social sciences and conservation sciences, this book offers a profoundly renewed strategic diagnosis as well as levers for activating regenerative processes to benefit the living world.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.010 |
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 teacher head, 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".