MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402592797 · doi:10.5751/es-15255-290326

Operationalizing pathway diversity in a mosaic landscape

2024· article· en· W4402592797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
My M. Sellberg, Steven J. Lade, Jan J. Kuiper, Katja Malmborg, Tobias Plieninger, Erik Andersson

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBanana Cultivation and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Park ServiceNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekSvenska Forskningsrådet FormasAustralian GovernmentBiodiversa+Bundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungVetenskapsrådetNational Science Foundation
KeywordsOperationalizationMosaicDiversity (politics)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyBiologySociologyAnthropologyEnvironmental scienceEpistemologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding and building resilience is critical to responding to the deepening polycrisis. Pathway diversity is a promising approach to resilience that combines individual and systems perspectives, but so far has only been applied to idealized cases. Here, we use a rich case study from the mosaic landscape of Västra Harg, Sweden, to test and advance pathway diversity. Mosaic landscapes can simultaneously produce food, support biodiversity, and provide space for recreation, but these benefits require multiple actors to collectively and individually respond to changing circumstances. Our results indicate that, although the mosaic landscape provides many options for actors, forestry strategies are generally more resilient than agricultural strategies due to higher risks of abandonment in agriculture. We also found that supporting a specific strategy may create lock-in and undermine livelihood resilience overall. The study contributes toward developing a practical method for assessing resilience that can inform governance of complex social-ecological systems.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and SocietySame topicBanana Cultivation and ResearchFrench-language works237,207