Modelling feedbacks between human and natural processes in the land system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The unprecedented use of Earth's resources by humans, in combination with the increasing natural variability in natural processes over the past century, is affecting evolution of the Earth system. To better understand natural processes and their potential future trajectories requires improved integration with and quantification of human processes. Similarly, to mitigate risk and facilitate socio-economic development requires a better understanding of how the natural system (e.g., climate variability and change, extreme weather events, and processes affecting soil fertility) affects human processes. To capture and formalize our understanding of the interactions and feedback between human and natural systems a variety of modelling approaches are used. While integrated assessment models are widely recognized as supporting this goal and integrating representations of the human and natural system for global applications, an increasing diversity of models and corresponding research have focused on coupling models specializing in specific human (e.g., decision-making) or natural (e.g., erosion) processes at multiple scales. Domain experts develop these specialized models with a greater degree of detail, accuracy, and transparency, with many adopting open-science norms that use new technology for model sharing, coupling, and high performance computing. We highlight examples of four different approaches used to couple representations of the human and natural system, which vary in the processes represented and in the scale of their application. The examples illustrate how groups of researchers have attempted to overcome the lack of suitable frameworks for coupling human and natural systems to answer questions specific to feedbacks between human and natural systems. We draw from these examples broader lessons about system and model coupling and discuss the challenges associated with maintaining consistency across models and representing feedback between human and natural systems in coupled models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".