Scale and Scope in Integrated Assessment: Lessons from Ten Years with Integrated Climate Assessment Model (ICAM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scale has traditionally been thought of in terms of the spatial extent and units of observation in a field. This is an excellent convention in the study of physical processes where scale also differentiates between the dominant forces at play. For example at the scale of planetary distances gravitation is the dominant force of interaction and the only thing that matters is mass, while at the atomic level electromagnetic forces dominate and charge of the bodies is critical. In this paper I would like to offer other criteria for scale selection in studies involving the interaction of social and natural systems. In this paper the focus is on integrated assessments where we hope to understand and capture the interaction between natural and social systems. By applying the same paradigm for scale identification as before, namely factors that dominate the dynamics and landscape of the system I would like to persuade the reader that we need to define two additional scales for integrated assessments: one to capture human cognitive processes and another to capture our social organization. The rationale for wanting to add these scales is simple. Awareness of the interface between nature and us is determined by our cognitive processes and technologies invented and employed to enhance these. Our ability to act on what we would like to do about the interface is shaped by the way our societies are organized and institutions invented and maintained to enhance them.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".