The evolution of empirical adaptation research in the global South from 2010 to 2020
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 applies a scoping review approach to inductively assess the evolution of empirical adaptation research in the global South over the period 2010 to 2020 using, as indicators of the literature, three leading adaptation journals covering different scales of analysis: Global Environmental Change, Regional Environmental Change and Climate and Development. The review confirms that previous calls for an increase in empirical adaptation research have been heeded. Research covers both policy and practice, and also different scales, with a particular focus on agricultural and rural settings. There is significant and growing interest in the determinants of adaptation and adaptive capacity (including the role of barriers and enablers), and a small but growing interest in the role of gender. The overall increase in total publications does not show even geographical or sectoral coverage. Large swathes of sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East/North Africa remain severely under-researched; and the overwhelming majority of papers focus on rural and agricultural issues rather than cities. This analysis offers tangible evidence to highlight where geographical and thematic gaps exist in our research on adaptation in the global South.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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