MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1929047866 · doi:10.1002/wcc.344

Climate change tipping points: origins, precursors, and debates

2015· article· en· W1929047866 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Russill

Bibliographic record

VenueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate Change · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcosystem dynamics and resilience
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTipping point (physics)Climate changeMetaphorSituatedContext (archaeology)Value (mathematics)EpistemologySociologyConfusionPositive economicsEnvironmental ethicsHistoryEconomicsPsychologyComputer sciencePhilosophyArchaeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article reviews the origins, precursors, and main proponents of climate change tipping points, and the debates that the tipping point concept has occasioned. The importance of dynamical systems theory,GAIAtheory, and abrupt climate change to the main proponents of tipping point warning systems is noted and situated in historical context. The ‘semantic confusion’ that animates contemporary debates, it is suggested, results not simply from a narrow conception of tipping points, but from inattention to the way metaphor was used to reshape climate policy. A deeper understanding of dynamical systems theory and its origins (both mathematical and metaphorical) is recommended for addressing the value of tipping points in policy.WIREs Clim Change2015, 6:427–434. doi: 10.1002/wcc.344 This article is categorized under: Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.042
Scholarly communication0.0130.021
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations55
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Climate ChangeSame topicEcosystem dynamics and resilienceFrench-language works237,207