MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312603670 · doi:10.1139/facets-2022-0121

Using an inverted funnel analogy to develop a theory of change supporting resilient ecosystem-based adaptation in the Great Lakes Basin: a case study of Lincoln, Ontario, Canada

2022· article· en· W4312603670 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Liette Vasseur, Bradley May, Meredith Caspell, Alex Marino, Pulkit Garg, Jocelyn Baker, Samantha Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityEnvironmental resource managementPsychological resilienceClimate changeTourismTheory of changeCitizen journalismParticipatory action researchEnvironmental planningGeographyPolitical scienceSociologyEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communities in coastal areas of Canada, including the Great Lakes, face a number of challenges, including increased water level variability and extreme weather events, causing flooding and localized erosion. To effectively respond to these coastal risks requires structured, deliberative approaches with the aim of fostering resilience and contributing to sustainability. A collaborative engagement process was used to explore community challenges. This included a project launch, key informant interviews, meetings, focus groups (agriculture, tourism, youth), and on-line methods (shoreline residents). Participatory social network analysis and theory of change were used for overall sense-making. As a result, community members identified six impact pathways moving forward with climate action: partnerships and collaboration; strategic engagement; water and watersheds; ecosystem-based adaptation; shoreline protection; and education. These themes are consistent with current theory on sustainability and theory of change development.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0090.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207