MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4372323232 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/v4ukj

Biosphere Futures: a database of social-ecological scenarios

2023· preprint· en· W4372323232 on OpenAlexaff
Jan J. Kuiper, Liam Carpenter-Urquhart, Marta Berbés‐Blázquez, Elisa Oteros Rozas, Linna Fredström, Kinga Psiuk, Codruţa Savu, Robert Kautsky, Anne D. Guerry, Stephen R. Carpenter, Charlyn Green, Megan Meacham, Roy Paco Remme, Federica Ravera, Franziska Wankmüller, Katie K. Arkema, Laura Pereira, Garry Peterson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarth Systems and Cosmic Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractBiosphereEcologyEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceDatabaseComputer scienceBusinessBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biosphere Futures (biospherefutures.net) is a new online database to collect and discover scenario studies from across the world, with a specific focus on scenarios that explicitly incorporate interdependencies between humans and their supporting ecosystems. It provides access to a globally diverse collection of case studies that includes most ecosystems and regions, enabling exploration of the multifaceted ways in which the future might unfold. Together, the case studies illuminate the diversity and plurality of people's expectations and aspirations for the future. The objective of Biosphere Futures is to promote the use of scenarios for sustainable development of the biosphere and to foster a community of practice around social-ecological scenarios. We do so by facilitating the assessment, synthesis, and comparative analysis of scenario case studies, pointing to relevant resources, and by helping practitioners and researchers to disseminate and showcase their own work. This article begins by outlining the rationale behind the creation of the database, followed by an introduction to its functionality and the criteria employed for selecting case studies. Subsequently, we present a synthesis of the first 100 case studies included in the scenarios database, highlighting emerging patterns and identifying potential avenues for further research. Finally, given that broader utilization and contributions to the database will enhance the achievement of Biosphere Futures' objectives, we invite the creators of social-ecological scenarios to contribute additional case studies. By expanding the database's breadth and depth, we can collectively foster a more nuanced understanding of the possible trajectories of our biosphere and enable better decision-making for sustainable 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)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.012

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEarth Systems and Cosmic EvolutionFrench-language works237,207