Charting knowledge co‐production pathways in climate and development
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate change poses significant global challenges. Solutions require new ways of working, thinking, and acting. Knowledge co‐production is often cited as one of the innovations needed for navigating the complexity of climate change challenges, yet how to best approach co‐production processes remains unclear. In this article, we explore the ways in which climate and development researchers are approaching the co‐production of knowledge and grapple with the extent to which the modalities used are reaching their stated potential. Using a multiple case analysis of six examples of successful co‐production, we outline a spectrum of co‐production approaches and outcomes and examine the drivers and challenges to co‐production in practice. Drawing on the case evidence and literature, we propose a heuristic that maps out this spectrum of aims and approaches to co‐production and that could inform reflections on how those planning co‐production processes envision them in 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it