MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4221062091 · doi:10.1007/s00267-022-01632-9

A Pragmatic Approach for Developing Landbase Cumulative Effects Assessments with Aggregated Impacts Crossing Multiple Ecological Values

2022· article· en· W4221062091 on OpenAlexafffund
Glenn D. Sutherland, Jason Smith, F. Louise Waterhouse, Sari C. Saunders, Kathryn Paige

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of Forests
FundersMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
KeywordsCumulative effectsEnvironmental resource managementCongruence (geometry)Riparian zoneEconometricsAdaptive managementForest managementEcologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMathematicsHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In strategic cumulative effects assessments, significant methodological challenges exist for classifying and aggregating impacts when using multiple indicators to determine relative risks upon ecological values from anthropogenic developments. We present a strategic spatial modeling case study CEA (2012-2112) in a 909,000 ha forested landscape of Southwestern British Columbia. We explore decisions needed to calculate and aggregate modeled indicators of cumulative anthropogenic footprints on landscape conditions by examining the choice of quantitative methods. We compare how aggregated impact conclusions may differ for seven indicators grouped in two ways to represent three ecological values (Forest Ecosystems, Riparian Ecosystems and Species at Risk): four expert-defined policy-driven valued components (VCs) or three analytically derived environmental resource factors (ERFs). By explicitly demonstrating methodological choices at each step of impact estimation and aggregation, we outline a practical systematic approach to customize strategic CEAs of this type and retain transparency for interpreting impacts among values. Aggregated impacts for VCs appeared dominated by those estimated from "condition" indicators describing the degree of expected deviations in indicator states from desired conditions; aggregated impacts of ERFs were dominated by "pressure" indicators linked to underlying causal processes assumed important for describing changes in future ecological conditions. High spatial congruence occurred between impact statements for some VCs compared to ERFs representing the same ecological value; poor congruence between others likely occurred because they represented different ecological processes. Aggregated impact classifications may usefully signal impact severity and risk but are dependent on indicator grouping, hence choices for aggregation are integral to the assessment process.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ManagementSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207