What Could (Or Should) Be the Regulatory Response to the Wicked Problem of Climate Change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. Sociologists define “wicked problems” as issues confronting humanity that have no clear right answer or perspective. The issue of climate change is a wicked problem of our age—and an issue that few regulators have explicitly addressed within their remit. The polluting effects of health care work itself have recently been highlighted as a call to action within health professions to address climate change issues more forcefully. Perspectives on how and why regulators should—or should not—prioritize climate change in their activities can be difficult to articulate. An approach to this issue that focuses on appropriate and proportionate use of regulatory levers is essential. Processes to allow for greater transparency in discussions, decision making, and strategic plan development are important for regulators to consider. While regulatory bodies vary in their statutory ability or organizational capacity to lead or address climate change directly within their profession, opportunities may exist to partner with other groups to develop evidence-informed options for practitioners.
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 | 0.053 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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.
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".