MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386746790 · doi:10.3934/geosci.2023033

Prioritizing climate adaptation at the local level in Ghana

2023· article· en· W4386746790 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIMS Geosciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicClimate Change, Adaptation, Migration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Work (physics)Climate changePoliticsRubricPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementSustainabilityPolitical economy of climate changeBusinessPublic economicsEnvironmental planningGeographyEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<abstract> <p>The increasing intensity and frequency of climate impacts exacerbate pressures on front-line local communities. This calls for location-specific adaptation strategies. Alignment of strategies with respective National Climate Change Strategy is key for the overall sustainability of initiatives and local communities. The work presented in this paper examines the adoption and prioritization of climate adaptation policies at the local level based on a case study of the Adansi North District (AND) in Ghana. An assessment of the extent to which climate adaptation policies are captured and budgeted for was done via a review of the district’s medium-term development and key political actors were interviewed to assess the level of priority they place on climate adaptation. Findings from the study reveal that 41% of the locally adopted policies directly align with stipulated national level policies. We attribute the adoption of climate policies in AND to local political actors having higher education which has afforded them good understanding of the climate change phenomenon, being experienced professionals and having to work within institutional rubrics that make climate policy formulation a requirement. However, little priority is given to these policies for implementation, mainly through the non-allocation of funds. We account for this with the weak environmental advocacy in the district and exchange between actors on adaptation. Furthermore, partisan actors who already wield veto powers and can promote policies that may not necessarily support adaptation measures, often do so, since their interest is to become popular among electorates who also prefer infrastructure over environmental policies. We conclude that although climate adaptation policies are fairly adopted and budgeted for in AND, they have not received commensurate priority for implementation. Recommendations are proposed for addressing this.</p> </abstract>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.459
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.137 · 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