The Questions of Who, What, and How in the Science - Policy Dialogue: Experiences from the Pan - Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The science‐policy interface in climate change adaptation became better managed over the past decades. However, the scientists and other knowledge producers, as well as policy makers still need to take bolder steps to more effectively engage with others to apply science and shape up policies. This paper aims to provide practical recommendations, intended to promote conversations between science and policy sectors to address climate change issues. Here, I used two different approaches to synthesize experiences and identify recommendations: a literature review and a case study. The paper stress main findings: (1) The linear communication model is still commonly involved in the science - policy dialogue and proved to be useful to increase the relevance of science and data products to decision makers. (2) When a gap between knowledge producer and knowledge user or decision maker exists, the need for a third party to specialize in bridging the gap become essential. (3) Indigenous people and knowledge must be involved in adaptation policy making based on legitimation local and traditional knowledge, designing the consultation process to broadly engage local and indigenous people, facilitating meaningful dialogues between traditional knowledge and science, and developing initiatives to strengthen skills and capacity of indigenous communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".