MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210891417 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2109217118

Ten facts about land systems for sustainability

2022· article· en· W4210891417 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Meyfroidt, Ariane de Bremond, Casey M. Ryan, Emma Archer, Richard Aspinall, Abha Chhabra, Gilberto Câmara, Esteve Corbera, Ruth DeFries, Sandra Dı́az, Jinwei Dong, Erle C. Ellis, Karl‐Heinz Erb, Janet Fisher, Rachael Garrett, Nancy E. Golubiewski, H. Ricardo Grau, J. Morgan Grove, Helmut Haberl, Andreas Heinimann, Patrick Hostert, Estéban G. Jobbágy, Suzi Kerr, Tobias Kuemmerle, Éric F. Lambin, Sandra Lavorel, Sharachchandra Lélé, Ole Mertz, Peter Messerli, Graciela Metternicht, Darla K. Munroe, Harini Nagendra, Jonas Østergaard Nielsen, Dennis S. Ojima, Dawn C. Parker, Unai Pascual, John R. Porter, Navin Ramankutty, Anette Reenberg, Rinku Roy Chowdhury, Karen C. Seto, Verena Seufert, Hideaki Shibata, Allison M. Thomson, B. L. Turner, Jotaro Urabe, A. Veldkamp, Peter H. Verburg, Gete Zeleke, Erasmus K. H. J. zu Ermgassen

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersStanford Woods Institute for the EnvironmentAddis Ababa UniversityAkademie der NaturwissenschaftenCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueUniversity of WaterlooIkerbasque, Basque Foundation for ScienceInstitució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis AvançatsFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSChinese Academy of SciencesNatural Environment Research CouncilVrije Universiteit AmsterdamSpace Applications CentreYale UniversityAzim Premji UniversityUniversity of New South WalesDivision of Environmental BiologyUniversity of TwenteIndian Space Research OrganisationOhio State UniversityNational Research FoundationUniversity of PretoriaSight Research UKJames Hutton InstituteSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasInternational Development Research CentreUniversität HohenheimMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónEuropean CommissionUniversity of BernHokkaido UniversityIndian Institute of ScienceUniversité Catholique de LouvainUniversidad Nacional de San LuisVetenskapsrådetArizona State UniversityDepartment of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaU.S. Forest ServiceUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyU.S. Department of AgricultureColorado State UniversityEnvironmental Defense FundNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSustainabilityEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningBusinessComputer scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land use is central to addressing sustainability issues, including biodiversity conservation, climate change, food security, poverty alleviation, and sustainable energy. In this paper, we synthesize knowledge accumulated in land system science, the integrated study of terrestrial social-ecological systems, into 10 hard truths that have strong, general, empirical support. These facts help to explain the challenges of achieving sustainability in land use and thus also point toward solutions. The 10 facts are as follows: 1) Meanings and values of land are socially constructed and contested; 2) land systems exhibit complex behaviors with abrupt, hard-to-predict changes; 3) irreversible changes and path dependence are common features of land systems; 4) some land uses have a small footprint but very large impacts; 5) drivers and impacts of land-use change are globally interconnected and spill over to distant locations; 6) humanity lives on a used planet where all land provides benefits to societies; 7) land-use change usually entails trade-offs between different benefits-"win-wins" are thus rare; 8) land tenure and land-use claims are often unclear, overlapping, and contested; 9) the benefits and burdens from land are unequally distributed; and 10) land users have multiple, sometimes conflicting, ideas of what social and environmental justice entails. The facts have implications for governance, but do not provide fixed answers. Instead they constitute a set of core principles which can guide scientists, policy makers, and practitioners toward meeting sustainability challenges in land use.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.033
Scholarly communication0.0110.021
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations420
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207