MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406204248 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113091

Bridging the gap in sustainability measurement and reporting for agroecosystems: Overview and development of an adaptive sustainability assessment and monitoring framework

2025· article· en· W4406204248 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Ibrahim, Evan Fraser

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphGrain Farmers of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityBridging (networking)AgroecosystemEnvironmental resource managementSustainability scienceAdaptive managementEnvironmental scienceEcologyComputer scienceSocial sustainabilityAgricultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.128
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.094
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1280.094
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0170.017
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.025
Open science0.0070.012
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.289 · 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
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

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisFrench-language works237,207