MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386022864 · doi:10.14430/arctic77896

What Gets Measured Gets Done: Challenges in Monitoring Water, Energy, and Food Security in Northern Canada

2023· article· en· W4386022864 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Ana-Maria Bogdan, Tayyab Shah, Michaela Sidloski, Xiaojing Lu, Meng Li, Shawn Ingram, David Natcher

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityLivelihoodProxy (statistics)Environmental resource managementBusinessWater securitySustainable developmentData collectionEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental planningWater resourcesGeographyEnvironmental scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceEconomicsAgricultureEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the challenges that were encountered during the collection of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators for water (SDG 6), energy (SDG 7), and food (SDG 2) security in northern Canada. Our findings indicate only 49% of indicator data were publicly available, while 21% had to be calculated using alternative sources or methods, 18% had to be replaced with proxy indicators for which data were available, and 12% of indicators were deemed unavailable entirely. The most common types of data challenges were associated with completeness, timeliness, and granularity. Given the current challenges faced by residents of northern Canada, with their livelihoods closely intertwined with the accessibility and availability of water, energy and food (WEF) resources, a comprehensive plan for data collection, storage, and management of WEF-related SDGs is required to advance WEF security from an aspirational to a transformative policy agenda.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.013
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicWater-Energy-Food Nexus StudiesFrench-language works237,207