The Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative (GAMI): Part 2 – Screening protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Context: It is now widely accepted that the climate is changing, and that societal response will need to be rapid and comprehensive to prevent the most severe impacts. A key milestone in global climate governance is to assess progress on adaptation. To-date, however, there has been negligible robust, systematic synthesis of progress on adaptation or adaptation-relevant responses globally. Aim: The purpose of this review protocol is to outline the methods used by the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative (GAMI) to systematically review human adaptation responses to climate-related changes that have been documented globally since 2013 in the scientific literature. The broad question underpinning this review is: Are we adapting to climate change? More specifically, we ask ‘what is the evidence relating to human adaptation-related responses that can (or are) directly reducing risk, exposure, and/or vulnerability to climate change?’ Methods: We review scientific literature 2013-2019 to identify documents empirically reporting on observed adaptation-related responses to climate change in human systems that can directly reduce risk. We exclude non-empirical (theoretical & conceptual) literature and adaptation in natural systems that occurs without human intervention. Included documents were coded across a set of questions focused on: Who is responding? What responses are documented? What is the extent of the adaptation-related response? What is the evidence that adaptation-related responses reduce risk, exposure and/or vulnerability? Once articles are coded, we conduct a quality appraisal of the coding and develop ‘evidence packages’ for regions and sectors. We supplement this systematic mapping with an expert elicitation exercise, undertaken to assess bias and validity of insights from included/coded literature vis a vis perceptions of real-world adaptation for global regions and sectors, with associated confidence assessments. Related protocols: This protocol represents Part 2 of a 5-part series outlining the phases of methods for this initiative. Part 2 outlines the methods used to conduct keyword searches and implement machine-assisted screening of documents based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. See Figures 1 and 2.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.064 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.158 | 0.032 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".