MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944111519 · doi:10.1177/2053019619848216

A human tragedy? The pace of negative global change exceeds human progress

2019· article· en· W2944111519 on OpenAlexafffund
Douglas W. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anthropocene Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Development and Environmental Policy
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTragedy (event)AnthropoceneTragedy of the commonsPacePopulation growthUrbanizationPopulationNatural resource economicsDevelopment economicsGlobal warmingClimate changeGeographySocioeconomicsEconomic growthEconomicsEcologyBiologyDemographySociologySocial scienceCommons

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I analyze changes in the demographic profiles and urbanization rates of 201 countries, and assess 69 global indicators of the human condition, in order to evaluate whether the human population is endangering its persistence and future quality of human life (tragedy of the commons). Encouraging changes in age profiles signal a slowing down in human population growth during the Anthropocene while exponential increases in several economic, education, and health indicators support an optimistic outlook for the future of humanity. But rapid growth by a larger number of negative indicators foretell a global human tragedy plagued by long-term increases in pollution, global warming, waning food production and unparalleled declines in biodiversity. Urgent action is required to avoid further collapse of the Earth System.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anthropocene ReviewSame topicSustainable Development and Environmental PolicyFrench-language works237,207