The climate-biodiversity-health nexus: a framework for integrated community sustainability planning in the Anthropocene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrated approaches to planning and policy are important for making progress toward sustainability. A variety of frameworks have been developed for facilitating such approaches to planning and policy, such as the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus. However, the WEF nexus has been criticized for a lack of clarity in how to apply the framework, whereas a goals-oriented framework potentially could be more easily applied and operationalized. This paper proposes such a framework, referred to here as the climate-biodiversity-health (CBH) nexus. The paper details the features of the CBH nexus framework, the interactions among its domains, and its potential applications. The CBH nexus consists of three domains (i.e., climate action, biodiversity conservation, and community health) and six subdomains (i.e., climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, habitat protection and regeneration, wildlife health and welfare, physical health, and mental health). The framework can be applied in practice to develop checklists/toolkits for guiding new development and as a basis for creating community indicator systems. It can also be applied in research to identify gaps in planning and policy documents and as a lens for participatory modeling exercises. Continued experimentation with, and improvement of, the CBH framework will reveal its most useful applications, thereby opening new opportunities for communities to effectively develop and implement integrated sustainability plans and policies.
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 | 0.023 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".