MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2491502170 · doi:10.1002/ehs2.1234

Sustainability policy considerations for ecosystem management in central and eastern europe

2016· article· en· W2491502170 on OpenAlexafffund
Fikret Berkes

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosystem Health and Sustainability · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSustainabilityCorporate governanceEuropean unionIncentiveBusinessStewardship (theology)Environmental resource managementEcosystem servicesCommonsMulti-level governancePoliticsNatural resource economicsEconomic systemEnvironmental planningEcosystemEconomicsEconomic policyPolitical scienceEcologyGeographyMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Here I discuss Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries as a region undergoing rapid change, resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union and admission of some of the states into the European Union. These events brought changes in governance and ecosystem management, triggering impacts on land use and biodiversity. What are some of the policy options toward sustainability in the face of these political, governance, and socioeconomic changes? Some policy considerations for ecosystem management and sustainability include taking a social–ecological systems approach to integrate biophysical subsystems and social subsystems; paying attention to institutions relevant to shared resources (commons) management; and using resilience theory to study change and guidance for governance. Documented experience in CEE seems to indicate shortcomings for both the centralized state management option and the purely market‐driven option for ecosystem management. If so, a “smart mix” of state regulations, market incentives, and self‐governance using local commons institutions may be the most promising policy option to foster ecosystem stewardship at multiple levels from local to international.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosystem Health and SustainabilitySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207