MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7026383031

An analysis of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

2024· dissertation· en· W7026383031 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSkemman · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Environmental Law and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvention on Biological DiversityBiodiversityConventionMeasurement of biodiversityGlobal biodiversityInterpretation (philosophy)Ecosystem services
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biodiversity is a fundamental precondition for a healthy environment and therefore an indispensable prerequisite for human life. There have already been many mass extinctions of species and ecosystems in the history of the Earth, however, as the human way of life is severely affecting the environment including biodiversity another one is feared. Legal instruments such as multilateral environmental agreements can support biodiversity protection worldwide.
\nThe most important agreement in this respect is the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Convention´s Conference of the Parties is the body that adopts global biodiversity targets. In this context, the importance of the Conference of the Parties must be emphasized, especially since its decisions, although not legally binding in principle, are of decisive importance for the interpretation of the Convention and aims to operationalise its objectives.
\nUnfortunately, not all the of the global biodiversity targets of the Strategic Plan 2011–2020 (Aichi targets) were achieved at a global level. Due to this, in December 2022, the 15th Conference of the Parties adopted new biodiversity targets as part of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Kunming-Montreal targets). The objective of this thesis is to compare the both, highlight important innovations introduced by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and how it is currently being implemented at international, regional, and national level. In addition, this thesis analyses and explains which Aichi targets were partially achieved and which were not.
\nFinally, the effectiveness of the Convention must also be viewed critically, in particular the lack of a functioning compliance mechanism. This is just as much a problem as the unclear legal effect of the decisions of the Conference of the Parties. There are other aspects that could lead to an improvement in the efficiency of both the Convention and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Some issues include the discussion about the United States accession to the Convention on Biological Diversity, a privatisation of natural resources, and the question of whether the Security Council should address the issue of biodiversity loss.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.241 · 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