MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392705755 · doi:10.1038/s44183-024-00045-x

Key components of sustainable climate-smart ocean planning

2024· article· en· W4392705755 on OpenAlexaff
Catarina Frazão Santos, Tundi Agardy, Larry B. Crowder, Jon Day, Malin L. Pinsky, Amber Himes‐Cornell, Julie Reimer, Sara García-Morales, Nathan Bennett, Amanda T. Lombard, Helena Calado, Marinez Eymael García Scherer, Wesley Flannery, Lisa M. Wedding, Elena Gissi

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Ocean Sustainability · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersDivision of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport SystemsFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsResearch Executive AgencyHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeUK Research and InnovationNational Research FoundationEuropean CommissionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMarine spatial planningKey (lock)GlobeEnvironmental resource managementCorporate governanceEnvironmental planningBusinessClimate changeSustainable developmentGeographyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceOceanographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Planning of marine areas has spread widely over the past two decades to support sustainable ocean management and governance. However, to succeed in a changing ocean, marine spatial planning (MSP) must be ‘climate-smart’— integrating climate-related knowledge, being flexible to changing conditions, and supporting climate actions. While the need for climate-smart MSP has been globally recognized, at a practical level, marine managers and planners require further guidance on how to put it into action. Here, we suggest ten key components that, if well-integrated, would promote the development and implementation of sustainable, equitable, climate-smart MSP initiatives around the globe.

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)0.015
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations39
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Ocean SustainabilitySame topicCoastal and Marine ManagementFrench-language works237,207