Supporting the Global Biodiversity Framework Monitoring with LUI, the Land Use Intensity Indicator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiversity loss has been identified as the environmental impact where humankind has been trespassing planetary boundaries most ruthlessly. Going beyond the pressures causing damages and analysing their un-derlying driving forces, ipbes identified a series of drivers. The Montreal-Kunming Global Biodiversity Framework GBF is intended to and claims to be a policy response to such analyses. To enhance the resilience of ecological systems, to allow for their recovery and enable the restoration efforts foreseen in the GBF to be successful, the pressures/direct drivers have to be reduced and the drivers/indirect drivers of biodiversity loss have to be redirected. However, often the necessary (semi-)quantitative infor-mation needed to politically address the drivers is absent or patchy. The data collected under the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting, to which the GBF is affiliated, monitors the state of ecosystems, with no priority for pressure/direct driver analysis. Hence we suggest LUI, a deliberately simple index designed for two purposes, as a tool for communicating where sophisticated statistics are available, and as an information collection tool elsewhere Its simple and intuitively understandable structure makes it suitable for citizens’ science applications, and thus for partici-pative monitoring when extensive statistical data gathering is not feasible.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".