MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406080583 · doi:10.1016/j.mex.2025.103155

Development of a risk assessment software for cumulative effect

2025· article· en· W4406080583 on OpenAlexafffund
Effah Kwabena Antwi, Gifty Osei, Wiafe Owusu-Banahene, John Boakye-Danquah, Prisca-Maria Okafor, Kobina Korankye, Akua Nyamekye Darko, Priscilla Toloo Apronti

Bibliographic record

VenueMethodsX · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsRisk assessmentSoftwareEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regional Risk Assessment is essential for evaluating the environmental impacts of large-scale resource development projects. However, existing Regional Asessement (RA) frameworks often lack generalizability which hinders result standardization. To address these challenges, the Risk Assessment Framework for Cumulative Effects (RAFCE) was developed to provide a standardized approach for impact identification, prioritization, and mitigation during RA. Despite these strengths, the RAFCE's reliance on spreadsheet-based manual data entry and calculations, coupled with the absence of collaborative features, increases the risks of human error and inflates operational costs including time taken to complete an RA. This paper proposes a software implementation of RAFCE to enhance efficiency and accuracy in the RA process. This is a novel approach that provides a platform unique of its kind for systematically evaluating the cumulative effects of resource exploration by multiple stakeholders. The development process involved three main steps:•Developing a NoSQL Database to efficiently store and retrieves RA data,•Implementing an API and Backend with Java Spring Boot automates critical functionalities and•Building a React-based Frontend Development: that provides a user-friendly interface, that simplifies data entry and software interaction.By automating calculations and improving the user interface, the proposed software mitigates the risks associated with manual processes and significantly reduces the cost and time required for the RA process, thereby enhancing its reliability and efficiency.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMethodsXSame topicEnvironmental and Social Impact AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207