Bridging the gap in sustainability measurement and reporting for agroecosystems: Overview and development of an adaptive sustainability assessment and monitoring framework
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
Measuring sustainability in agroecosystems is inherently complex due to the diverse and dynamic nature of agricultural sustainability indicators. Traditional assessment tools often rely on universal objectives and baselines, which can obscure immediate problems and hinder effective sustainability efforts. In this paper, we propose an Adaptive Sustainability Assessment and Monitoring Framework (ASAMF) intended to address some of these limitations by starting with a clearly defined sustainability objective. The framework categorizes sustainability indicators and selects those relevant to each category, establishing a site-specific baseline against which actual farm measurements are compared. This approach offers a nuanced understanding of a farm’s sustainability relative to its potential capacity, highlighting areas for targeted improvement. The proposed framework is dynamic and adaptable, allowing for the evaluation of sustainability based on region-specific objectives and indicators rather than absolute metrics. This flexibility facilitates meaningful comparisons across different geographic locations and farming practices, enabling a pragmatic assessment of agroecosystem performance. By aligning agricultural practices with sustainability goals, the framework supports the transition towards more sustainable agroecosystems. This paper explores the conceptual foundations of sustainability and engages with existing measurement approaches, presenting the structure of the Adaptive Sustainability Assessment and Monitoring Framework. The framework’s practical applications and broader implications are discussed, demonstrating its potential to guide policy decisions and advance global sustainability initiatives. Through this comprehensive examination, we aim to provide a robust and practical framework that can enhance the assessment and monitoring of sustainability of agroecosystems.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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