Decision Analysis to Advance Environmental Sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision analysis provides a robust framework for complex decisions related to environmental sustainability and conservation, including for energy and water, fisheries and wildlife management, agriculture, and climate change response. The complexities of these problems stem from their large scope and scale, which leads to multiple decision makers, stakeholders, rightsholders, and other entities with potentially competing objectives. These problems often are time limited (e.g., urgent action is required to prevent species’ extinction), involve management interventions over long time scales and delayed responses to management (deep uncertainty), and are impeded by limited resources (funding, capacity, etc.). In this Special Issue on “Decision Analysis to Advance Environmental Sustainability,” we present five case studies of applications of decision analysis to complex problems in environmental sustainability and conservation. These case studies incorporate multiple objectives related to ecological and environmental sustainability, economic and social concerns, and logistics of implementation. They showcase a wide range of tools and applications to these problems. We also provide suggestions for new avenues of research and application of decision analysis to problems of environmental sustainability and conservation, including how to incorporate other decision-making tools into decision analysis processes, how to broaden the reach of decision analysis to other sustainability problems, how to incorporate more stakeholders and rightsholders into the decision process, the potential to incorporate new technology into these processes, identifying more creative alternatives, how to secure more funding, ways to move from decision to action, and how to move beyond status quo to make big transitions necessary to achieve sustainability.
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 | 0.030 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".