Uncertainty and perceived cause-effect help explain differences in adaptation responses between Swidden agriculture and agroforestry smallholders
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swidden smallholders are among the most vulnerable groups to climate change. Many efforts have focused on incentivizing their transition to agroforestry, often with limited results. Such transitions, embedded in complex socio-environmental changes, generate uncertainties, often ignored in the science-policy interface. In this paper, we examine dispersed disciplinary developments in decision-making under uncertainty, apply the insights to a case study, and discuss results in the context of prevalent knowledge production assumptions and incentivized livelihood transitions policies. We use interview data from three communities in the Mexican Maya region to create aggregated mental models of smallholders who adopted agroforestry, and those who continue to practice traditional swidden agriculture. The mental models depict perceived causal connections—including uncertain or delayed—between hazards, causes, consequences and responses. Our results show substantial differences in mental models driven by length of explanatory pathways, attribution of hazards and portfolios of responses, suggesting that agroforesters were more prone to proactive behavior and/or more responsive to outside discourses. Agroforestry is effective in reducing some uncertainties in its bundled approach, but new uncertainties for which smallholders have no prior experience arise. Contrastingly, recurrent themes point to lower self-efficacy in swidden smallholders, which may help explain non-adoption. We caution that not recognizing differences in mental models among potential beneficiaries of incentivized interventions may inadvertently exacerbate inequalities, while unaddressed uncertainties may lead to future disadoption. As a scientific tool, mental model mapping can inform the design of adaptation measures by identifying new knowledge and conflicting rationales, and segmenting strategies for potential (non)adopters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it