MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3067142208 · doi:10.1139/facets-2020-0021

Ten simple rules to facilitate evidence implementation in the environmental sciences

2020· article· en· W3067142208 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christopher J. Lortie, Malory Owen

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Simple (philosophy)ChecklistReuseManagement scienceComputer scienceData scienceKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsEngineeringPsychologyEpistemologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a gap between fundamental science and managers. There are many general solutions including the need to better leverage the primary scientific literature for decision-making. Herein, we provide a list of 10 simple rules to support environmental management through better scientific writing and suggest practices for more transparent publications. These rules can also be used as a checklist for reusing the primary literature when searching for relevant evidence in the environmental sciences. We need to better structure knowledge in papers for connections within sustainable societies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.264 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicEnvironmental Education and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207