MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408509457 · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101717

Revealing driver-mediated indirect interactions between ecosystem services using Bayesian Belief Networks

2025· article· en· W4408509457 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosystem Services · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityCentre For Cold Ocean Resources EngineeringUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCRC Health Group
KeywordsEcosystem servicesBayesian networkEcosystemBayesian probabilityComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEconomicsArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Bayesian Belief Networks improve our understanding of ecosystem service interactions. • Human activity influences trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services. • Not accounting for an urban driver under- or overestimates direct interactions. • Human activity intensity explains a trade-off among bird-watching & carbon storage. • Identifying drivers behind interactions may lead to more informed decision making. Understanding the drivers mediating ecosystem service interactions is essential for supporting policy decisions aimed at sustaining synergies and mitigating trade-offs. Currently, most studies assessing ecosystem service interactions do not model them as a causal network. Here, we use Bayesian Belief Networks (BBNs) to assess how human activity intensity influences ecosystem service interactions ( e.g. , trade-off, synergy, no effect). We quantify changes in interactions for two snapshots in time in Southern Quebec (Canada) among aboveground forest carbon regulation, maple syrup provisioning, livestock provisioning, landscape recreation, bird-watching recreation, and number of bird species per route (an Essential Biodiversity Variable). By comparing correlation analyses to BBNs with or without the driver of human activity intensity, we show that not accounting for human activity intensity results in incorrectly attributing a driver-mediated trade-off as a direct trade-off ( e.g. , between bird-watching recreation and aboveground forest carbon regulation) and failure to detect direct interactions ( e.g. , between bird-watching recreation and livestock provisioning). BBNs provide a more complete understanding of interactions. In contrast to correlation analysis, which can only assess a relationship between two variables, BBNs can assess relationships among multiple variables and as such determine whether a relationship is due to a shared driver or whether the relationship is due to a direct synergy or trade-off among services. However, if relevant drivers are excluded, then direct interactions may be missed, and driver-mediated relationships may be incorrectly attributed as direct interactions. A better understanding of drivers that shape ecosystem service interactions could guide their management and provide targeted policy interventions.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.224 · 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