MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399596157 · doi:10.1080/26395916.2024.2359061

People working with nature: a theoretical perspective on the co-production of Nature’s Contributions to People

2024· article· en· W4399596157 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

VenueEcosystems and People · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónAgence Nationale de la RechercheEuropean CommissionBiodiversa+
KeywordsProduction (economics)Complementarity (molecular biology)Natural (archaeology)EcosystemEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceNatural resource economicsBiochemical engineeringEcologyEconomicsEngineeringMicroeconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The co-production of Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP) is a set of processes in which anthropogenic inputs (i.e. material or non-material actions and the assets supporting these actions) and natural inputs (i.e. ecological structures and processes) interact to produce NCP. An interdisciplinary understanding of NCP co-production can support decision-making on ecosystem management or NCP use, given natural constraints, limited human inputs, possible adverse effects and trade-offs arising from co-production. In this paper, we show that mechanisms of co-production at the ecosystem level and the NCP flow level are fundamentally different. At the level of ecosystems, people manage natural structures and processes to influence the production of potential NCP (e.g. via planting, restoring, fertilizing). At this level, anthropogenic inputs can partially substitute for natural inputs, but natural inputs are necessary whereas anthropogenic inputs are not. At the level of flows, co-production actions convert potential NCP into realized NCP and quality of life (e.g. via harvesting, transporting, transforming, consuming, and appreciating NCP). At this level, anthropogenic inputs are complementary to natural inputs, although some substitutability can occur at the margin. Analysing the substitutability and complementarity between natural and anthropogenic capitals, as well as the adverse effects or mutual enhancement between them, is crucial for informed decision-making on landscape and NCP management. This understanding enables the identification of strategies that can ensure NCP supply and increase human well-being in a sustainable manner.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaScience and technology studies
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.231 · 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