MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408541235 · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2025.107912

A flexible framework for species-based regional cumulative effects assessments to support offshore wind energy planning and management

2025· article· en· W4408541235 on OpenAlexafffund
Megan C. Ferguson, Kathryn A. Williams, M. Wing Goodale, Evan M. Adams, Paul Knaga, Katrien A. Kingdon, Stephanie Avery‐Gomm

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Impact Assessment Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Acceptance of Renewable Energy
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsOffshore wind powerSubmarine pipelineEnvironmental resource managementCumulative effectsEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental planningMarine engineeringWind powerEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Offshore wind energy development (OWED) is pivotal for renewable energy transition and climate resiliency. However, OWED activities may negatively affect wildlife, contributing to cumulative effects (CE) from human activities and natural processes. Cumulative effects assessments (CEAs) are vital for informed planning and management of OWED activities during regional assessment, site selection, and site evaluation phases. To reduce impacts on wildlife, OWEDs should be sited in areas that avoid or minimize CE. We present a flexible, species-based framework to assess CE from OWED activities and other pressures, supporting decision-making in early planning phases. The framework uses a species-based approach, applicable to various wildlife receptors (i.e., species or populations), and adapts to available information on ecology, socioeconomics, and pressures. The analytical strategy uses a CE metric to indicate the presence or magnitude of effects from all pressures on receptors. Spatially explicit optimization methods identify OWED site configurations that minimize a CE metric. The framework accommodates alternative pressure scenarios that include foreseeable future human activities and natural processes and can explore the sensitivity of the results to uncertain parameters. Given sufficient spatial information on receptor density, pressure magnitude, and cause-effect pathways, the spatial optimization algorithm can find solutions that minimize species- or population-level impacts from CE. If this ideal standard cannot be achieved due to information gaps, alternative metrics may be used to inform the immediate decision-making process. This framework offers a practical approach for balancing renewable energy goals with wildlife conservation, even when information is incomplete. • Step-by-step framework for cumulative effects assessment on any wildlife species or population. • Regional approach adaptable to diverse species and pressure data types. • Spatial optimization identifies offshore wind site configurations minimizing impacts. • Accommodates alternative scenarios, exploring sensitivity to uncertain parameters. • Standardized metrics enable consistent and comparable cumulative effects assessments.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.395 · 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Impact Assessment ReviewSame topicSocial Acceptance of Renewable EnergyFrench-language works237,207