MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049096615 · doi:10.1142/s146433320600244x

WORKSHOP APPROACH TO DEVELOPING OBJECTIVES, TARGETS AND INDICATORS FOR USE IN SEA

2006· article· en· W2049096615 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alison Donnelly, Eleanor Jennings, Peter Mooney, John Finnan, Deirdre Lynn, Mike Jones, Tadhg O’Mahony, Riki Thérivel, Gerry Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine and fisheries research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsStrategic environmental assessmentProcess (computing)Environmental planningEnvironmental resource managementPlan (archaeology)WorkloadEnvironmental impact assessmentStrategic planningEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Process managementOperations researchBusinessEngineeringGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is the process through which the impacts of plans and programmes on the environment are assessed. Objectives, targets and indicators are the tools through which these environmental impacts can be measured. The same objectives, targets and indicators may be used for all planning levels but it is also necessary to identify additional plan specific ones. We used a workshop based approach to provide an interface between planners and environmental scientists and to give examples of objectives, targets and indicators for biodiversity, water, air and climatic factors, which could be used in SEA for national, regional and local plans. In addition, we highlight the need for careful consideration during the selection process of these variables which will result in a more rigorous and robust SEA. This is a challenging process but once completed will maximise resources and reduce the workload later in the SEA process.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and ManagementSame topicMarine and fisheries researchFrench-language works237,207