MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7137482977

Chapter I.3 Implementing the precautionary approach for seabed mining: a review of state practice

2024· other· en· W7137482977 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Robert Makgill, Aline Jaeckel, Keith MacMaster

Bibliographic record

VenueDirectory of Open access Books (OAPEN Foundation) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaEuropean CommissionGovernment of the United Kingdom
KeywordsContext (archaeology)United Nations Convention on the Law of the SeaConventionState (computer science)Global commonsPrecautionary principleMultidisciplinary approachScarcityGeopoliticsSeabed
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For years, exploration of seabed natural resources has been ongoing while exploitation in deep marine areas remained unrealistic due to land-based mineral availability and costs. However, mounting pressures from the green transition, climate change, and long-lasting fears of terrestrial minerals scarcity now bring exploitation prospects closer to reality. This has caused concern to a growing chorus of States, scientists, industries, NGOs, and parts of civil society due to the potential environmental and social impacts of these activities. As a result, the idea of a moratorium or ‘precautionary pause’ is gaining ground. Yet, an important number of interpretation and implementation issues of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1994 Agreement remain to be answered as a means to move forward in accordance with international law. This multidisciplinary book, designed to become the essential handbook on the matter, provides a global overview of the national, regional, and international regulatory frameworks applicable to the exploration and exploitation of seabed minerals on the continental shelf and the Area, as well as the related state of the science on the matter. By presenting historical and geopolitical context crucial to understanding regulation evolution, the book equips readers with foundational legal and policy knowledge. It furthermore addresses contemporary and prospective issues and offers unique insights into regional and national practices, including non-Party States to UNCLOS. Chapter VI.1.4 of this book is freely available as a downloadable Open Access PDF at http://www.taylorfrancis.com under a Creative Commons [Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-BY-NC-ND)] 4.0 license.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
GenreReview

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 venueDirectory of Open access Books (OAPEN Foundation)French-language works237,207