MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036216646

Bringing Nature back into Cities - Urban ecosystems restoration in the international and EU legal biodiversity frameworks

2024· dissertation· en· W7036216646 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityUrban ecosystemEcosystem servicesEcosystemRestoration ecologyUrban planningBiodiversity conservationSustainable development
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biodiversity is declining globally, and traditional conservation methods have proven insufficient. Ecosystems restoration is imperative, also in urban areas. This thesis underscores the existence of an international trend toward establishing frameworks for urban ecosystems restoration. Various initiatives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals and the UN Decade for Ecosystems Restoration, highlight the need for urban biodiversity restoration, though current treaties lack robust restoration obligations. The recent Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, negotiated under the CBD, includes a target on urban green spaces, but it is non-binding and its implementation framework lacks compliance mechanisms. In the EU, the Green Infrastructure Strategy and the 2030 Biodiversity Strategy emphasize urban ecosystems restoration, but the Nature Directives do not address restoration in urban areas. The proposed Nature Restoration Law seeks to address these gaps with binding targets and a strong implementation framework, although its effectiveness has been weakened in negotiations. Despite progress, significant challenges remain.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo)Same topicPlant and Biological Electrophysiology StudiesFrench-language works237,207