Accelerating climate research and action in cities through advanced science-policy-practice partnerships
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
Abstract Cities have become increasingly recognized as key sites for climate research and action. Recently, these efforts have been significantly advanced through science-policy-practice partnerships. The objective of this paper is to assess how these partnerships are structured, the research and action agenda that underpins them, and how this agenda is being articulated and implemented. The assessment also helps to define some of the conceptual and operational gaps faced by the science-policy-practice community and how they can be addressed. The work evaluates the critical conditions for promoting these advances including the definition and fulfillment of knowledge needs, the integration of different perspectives and approaches, establishment of pathways to finance the urban climate research and action community, and creation and promotion of new partnerships. The paper concludes with a series of strategies and recommendations for how targeted policy adjustments can accelerate and support the production of actionable knowledge and this integrated researcher-policymaker-practitioner community.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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