MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297239716 · doi:10.1029/2022ef002857

Climate Action Failure Highlighted as Leading Global Risk by Both Scientists and Business Leaders

2022· article· en· W4297239716 on OpenAlexafffund
Seth Wynes, Jennifer Garard, Paola Fajardo, Midori Aoyagi, Melody Brown Burkins, Kalpana Chaudhari, Terrence Forrester, Matthias Garschagen, Paul Hudson, Maria Ivanova, Edward Maibach, Anne‐Sophie Stevance, Sylvia Wood, H. Damon Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth s Future · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityFuture EarthConcordia University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSalience (neuroscience)Action (physics)PandemicClimate changePolitical scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Scientific consensusScientific evidenceGlobal warmingBusinessInfectious disease (medical specialty)PsychologyDiseaseBiologyEcologyMedicineEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite the increased salience of infectious disease risk due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, two recent surveys of the business and scientific communities have found a continued belief in the prominence of environmental risks. In particular, failure to take action on climate change was seen as a highly likely risk whose impacts would become locked‐in barring an immediate global response. These expert opinions are consistent with a growing body of evidence and give us insight into the priorities of global thought leaders who study and respond to risk. Given this alignment in priorities, we argue for the importance of integrating climate and environmental action into responses to emerging threats.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth s FutureSame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207