Horizontal portability: A proposal for representing place‐based relational values in research and policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Relational values feature prominently in recent international efforts to protect global biodiversity. In this article, we provide a conceptual approach for researchers, facilitators and policy‐makers to adequately represent place‐based relational values in assessments of nature's value that inform practice and policy. We suggest employing horizontal portability as an alternative and complement to the dominant mode of assessing nature's value via vertical subsumption. Vertical subsumption is a process through which particular values are generalised into overarching categories to conform to more general value concepts and thereby stripped of their place‐specific meanings. In contrast, horizontal portability is introduced here as a conceptual approach that maintains the contextual rootedness of place‐based local expressions of value while also communicating them across places, knowledge systems, and communities. The movement (i.e. ‘porting’) is ‘horizontal’ because it allows relational values rooted in a particular biocultural context to speak to different contexts on equal terms. We discuss how research on the value of nature and people –nature relationships can support horizontal portability. Finally, we provide recommendations for the application of horizontal portability that promotes more plurality and greater inclusion of place‐based relational values in research, policy and action. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".