MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400408323 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2215689121

Showcasing advances and building community in modeling for sustainability

2024· article· en· W4400408323 on OpenAlexafffund
Noelle E. Selin, Amanda Giang, William C. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHarvard UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSustainabilityEnvironmental planningArchitectural engineeringEnvironmental resource managementBusinessComputer scienceEngineeringEnvironmental scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We organized this Special Feature on "Modeling Dynamic Systems for Sustainable Development" to showcase the field's recent advances.Much recent research in sustainability science has mobilized data and theory to better understand systems that include interacting people, technologies, institutions, ecosystems, and both social and environmental processes.A recent National Academies workshop and an Annual Review paper identified several challenges and open questions for the field, stressing the importance of developing and testing new theories to advance knowledge and guide action (1, 2).However, there has been less attention in sustainability science toward integrating modeling with theory and data-focused approaches.Modeling is necessary for making projections about the dynamical implications of our present understanding of nature-society systems-which is essential to determine whether long-term trends in naturesociety interactions are consistent with sustainable development goals and to analyze whether particular interventions (e.g., technologies, policies, behavior) are likely to change those interactions in ways that promote such goals.Many papers, through several decades, have called for better modeling tools to address the connections and feedbacks between natural and social processes (3-6).Much of this work emphasizes shortcomings of models in areas important for sustainability analysis, including capturing multiscale complexity, tracking long-term dynamics, incorporating human agency, and accounting for the generation of novelty.Although this literature highlights significant and persistent gaps in current models, there has been growing interest and action in many research communities to advance science through simulating these aspects of nature-society systems.For example, there has been renewed attention to modeling-related issues in collective efforts to address climate and global change (7, 8), macro-energy systems (9), and social-ecological systems (10).Communities focused on environmental and societal modeling have also increasingly addressed integrated systems (11-13).Recent advances in computational tools and techniques mean that today's state-of-the-art models and analyses look very different from, for example, perceptions of integrated assessment models typically introduced decades ago but still used to address topics such as climate change (14).New state-of-the-art models build on a broader variety of research traditions, are informed and evaluated by novel data sources (including qualitative and quantitative data), make extensive use of growing capacities for data acquisition and analysis, and engage a greater diversity of decision-relevant topics and stakeholders.Many advances are being applied to challenges within specific domains-e.g., to energy systems, food systems, and transportation systems.Others are wellknown within some disciplines-e.g., ecology, economics, or engineering-but not widely adopted in others despite having much to offer there.At the same time, there is much potential for those developing and implementing similar methods to communicate and build community across their respective disciplines and domains.The papers in this Special Feature highlight advances in simulating coupled nature-society systems.We believe that these techniques, if they were more widely adopted, could significantly improve the capacity of sustainability science researchers to test theory, mobilize data, and inform action.Each contribution to the Special Feature addresses a specific area in which novel modeling approaches have demonstrated the capacity to advance theory and insight more broadly.The contributions were selected to be illustrative rather than comprehensive and to facilitate connections across the communities they represent.The process by which we invited and curated papers for this Special Feature reflected this community-building aim.We first conducted a virtual workshop in June 2021, in which roughly 40 invited participants shared their recent modeling advances relevant to sustainable development.We focused on recruiting a diverse cohort of authors, including multiple earlycareer scholars who have developed or used models in a variety of domains relevant to sustainability.Through that process, we refined our proposal for the Special Feature, and conducted an online workshop and weekly virtual seminar series in spring 2022, in which participants presented their papers for comments by the broader group.A number of the papers in the Special Feature represent work catalyzed by connections and ideas generated through this process, with collaborations from authors who had not met prior to the workshop.We hope that similar connections are further facilitated by the publication of the papers in this Special Feature.An opening Perspective by Selin et al. (15) gives an overview of recent progress in this area, arguing that recent work has begun to address longstanding and often-cited challenges in

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.014
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.238
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicComplex Systems and Decision MakingFrench-language works237,207