MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205620484 · doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2021.12.009

Roadmap to develop a stress test for forest ecosystem services supply

2022· article· en· W4205620484 on OpenAlexaff
K. Krämer, Laura Bouriaud, Peter H. Feindt, Lan van Wassenaer, Nicole Glanemann, Marc Hanewinkel, C.M. van der Heide, Geerten Hengeveld, Marjanke Hoogstra-Klein, Verina Ingram, Anders Levermann, Marcus Lindner, Csaba Mátyás, G.M.J. Mohren, Bart Muys, G.J. Nabuurs, Marc Palahí, Nico Polman, Christopher Reyer, Ernst‐Detlef Schulze, Rupert Seidl, W. de Vries, S.E. Werners, Georg Winkel, Rasoul Yousefpour

Bibliographic record

VenueOne Earth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersWageningen University and ResearchHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeAustrian Science FundEuropean Cooperation in Science and TechnologyEuropean Commission
KeywordsEcosystem servicesEnvironmental resource managementBusinessResilience (materials science)StakeholderPsychological resilienceCorporate governanceEcosystemEnvironmental planningEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsEcologyEnvironmental scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forests play a key role in a bio-based economy by providing renewable materials, mitigating climate change, and accommodating biodiversity. However, forests experience massive increases in stresses in their ecological and socioeconomic environments, threatening forest ecosystem services supply. Alleviating those stresses is hampered by conflicting and disconnected governance arrangements, competing interests and claims, and rapid changes in technology and social demands. Identifying which stresses threaten forest ecosystem services supply and which factors hamper their alleviation requires stakeholders' perceptions. Stakeholder-oriented stress tests for the supply of forest ecosystem services are therefore necessary but are not yet available. This perspective presents a roadmap to develop a stress test tailored to multiple stakeholders' needs and demands across spatial scales. We provide the Cascade and Resilience Rosetta , with accompanying performance- and resilience indicators, as tools to facilitate development of the stress test. The application of the stress test will facilitate the transition toward a bio-based economy in which healthy and diverse forests provide sustainable and resilient ecosystem services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOne EarthSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207