MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043089787

Rights of Nature: an Exploration of the Qualitative Evidence of Rights of Nature’s Contribution to Environmental Conservation

2024· dissertation· en· W7043089787 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonhoodEnvironmentalismRights of NatureHuman rightsGovernment (linguistics)Qualitative researchEnvironmental lawReservation of rights
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Rights of Nature as a legal approach and instrument to safeguard our environment are evolving rapidly. The goal is to establish that nature obtains legal rights which are equal to humans. Nature's rights are still a relatively new concept that is mostly studied as an ecocentric legal philosophy. This study seeks to contribute to this literature by examining the qualitative evidence of the legal paradigm of the Rights of Nature and if it contributes to environmental conservation. This study examines the qualitative evidence from three cases where Rights of Nature has been\nimplemented: the Magpie River (Canada), the Mar Menor Lagoon (Spain) and the Wadden Sea (the Netherlands). Each case has implemented and recognized an ecosystem as a legal personhood and gave “them” their own rights, which provides an opportunity to explore Rights of Nature in different scenarios with diverse cultural, economic, and ecological aspects.\n\nTo meet the objective, I have conducted a document analysis, using a comparative case study approach to examine the available research material on Rights of Nature and the three cases. The material used has been official government documents, scientific papers, and gray literature (media coverage etc.). The discussion drew upon insights from two academic discourses to underpin the rationale for Rights of Nature: environmental justice, which concerns fairness among humans in their relationship with nature, and ecological justice, which focuses on fairness for nature itself.\n\nThe qualitative evidence from the three cases supports the idea that the Rights of Nature can bolster environmental conservation efforts, setting important precedents for cultural and legal transformation toward respecting natural entities. However, for Rights of Nature to be truly effective, it must be integrated into a comprehensive strategy featuring robust enforcement mechanisms, international cooperation, and shifts in human-nature relationships. The proliferation of Rights of Nature initiatives globally hints at a future where legal systems might recognize natural entities as rights holders, potentially enhancing global environmental governance. Nevertheless, this hopeful vision must contend with existing legal and bureaucratic structures that may resist such profound changes.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0130.040
Scholarly communication0.0080.013
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo)Same topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207