Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many landscapes are subject to biophysical change on the time scale of a normal human life. Despite a common belief that if the human footprint were absent, natural landscapes would be in benevolent stasis, such rapid changes have frequently affected human history; also, they have implications for environmental attitudes and policies. Now, when human influences on the environment are greater than ever and threaten to overwhelm natural systems, a re-examination of non-human change, and particularly those earth processes that cause harm, may be instructive. Scanning the voluminous literature on sustainable development, it is hard to find discussions of natural disasters and rapid geological change. There is an opportunity for earth scientists to contribute to the search for a clearer concept and its application. Looking at physical landscapes in terms of their potential for continuity and for providing natural resources can offer fresh perspectives on the complex idea of sustainability. SOMMAIRE Nombreux sont les paysages qui sont exposes a des changements biophysiques a l'echelle temporelle humaine normale. Contrairement a la croyance repandue selon laquelle en l'absence d'humains, les paysages naturels connaitraient un etat d'equilibre bienveillant, de tels changements ont frequemment module l'histoire humaine; ces changements ont aussi des implications sur les attitudes et les politiques environnementales. Maintenant que les effets anthropiques sur l'environnement n'ont jamais ete aussi importants, menacant meme l'existence de systemes naturels, il serait instructif de reexaminer les changements autres qu'humains, en particulier les processus terrestres nefastes. L'etude de l'imposante documentation traitant de developpement viable ne comprend que peu d'etudes traitant de desastres naturels et de changements geologiques rapides. Voila l'occasion pour les geoscientifiques de contribuer a mieux circonscrire le concept de viabilite et a en developper des outils d'application efficaces. Considerer les paysages physiques en s'attachant a etablir leur potentiel naturel respectif a subsister et comme source de ressources naturelles pourra devoiler des perspectives nouvelles sur la notion de viabilite.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".