The Actor in 4 dimensions: A relevant methodology to analyze local environmental governance and inform Ostrom’s social-ecological systems framework
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
This paper presents the Actor in 4 dimensions (A4D) model as a complementary tool to the Social-ecological systems framework (SESF) in order to better integrate individual and groups’ representations into local environmental governance analysis. As the A4D is based on actors’ representations of their social-ecological system (SES) and of its governance, it mainly informs the Actors subsystem of the SESF, even if it can also give useful insights for other framework’s sub-systems. We define the SESF actor’s sub-tiers and the corresponding A4D indicators and highlight the complementarity between both approaches in order to operationalize the SESF. This parallel is exemplified by the case of Maio island (a small-scale fishing community in Cape Verde). Our comparison also highlights other assets of the A4D methodology for the advancement of environmental governance’s study.•The A4D allows actors' participation and discussion on the SES and analyses common and divergent discourses and values between actors.•The A4D points to power relations by integrating strong, weak and absent actors in its analysis.•By highlighting subjective and reflexive elements, the A4D complements the SESF in their common attempt to analyze SES.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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