Hotspots 2.0: Toward an integrated understanding of stressors and response options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated and transdisciplinary approaches are necessary in hotspots research where the intention is to influence policy and practice. Knowing that climate change will impact major ecosystem services and the sustainability of life support systems, a critical examination of the hotspot concept and approach is undertaken to pursue synergistic responses. Hotspots 2.0 embodies current thinking about planning towards multiple drivers of change and seeing human and natural systems as mutually inter-dependent and benefiting from integrated policy approaches. Such proposed adaptation interventions to inter-related stressors will complement biodiversity conservation, disaster risk reduction, and human well-being. Through a systematic review, we assess 114 relevant peer review cases to examine integrative responses to climatic and non-climatic vulnerabilities in various hotspot regions. Furthermore, we illustrate the utility of the Hotspots 2.0 approach using emerging insights from the 'Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia' in semi-arid regions, deltas, and glacier-fed river basin hotspots.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".