Fostering inclusion and equity in ocean sustainability through knowledge co-construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ocean science plays a critical role in decision-making processes with distributional effects, which inherently carry equity implications. At the same time, concerns about equity shape how ocean science is conducted, influencing which scientific questions are prioritized. Expanding participation in setting research agendas through inclusive processes can significantly alter the trajectory of ocean science. Recent initiatives promoting "ocean knowledge co-production" in transdisciplinary research are grounded in this idea, emphasizing the involvement of decision-makers and coastal communities in determining scientific priorities. Such inclusivity enhances the relevance of research for policy needs and strengthens community trust by increasing the legitimacy of scientific endeavors. However, co-production is not a one-size-fits-all solution. There are multiple models of co-production, with varying degrees of inclusion, equitability, and effectiveness, and some may even backfire if not implemented carefully. The emerging International Platform for Ocean Sustainability (IPOS) aims to integrate co-production into its operational framework, with the goal of producing actionable, community-relevant research to strengthen ocean knowledge-policy interfaces. We present the findings from our multi-pronged attempts at defining and piloting inclusive and equitable co-production processes within the context of the IPOS framework. This includes: 1) Key design features elicited during dedicated workshops with marine social scientists and practitioners; 2) The "IPOS Handbook for Best Practices Implementation."; 3) Outcomes from a Towards IPOS Pilot Project in co-leadership with Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP&LC). Insights from these experiences point towards the need for a clear, principled, and consistent engagement with researchers, practitioners, and historically marginalized ocean communities from the Global South. For IPOS to successfully contribute to ocean sustainability, it must ensure that co-production processes are not only inclusive but also equitable and capable of addressing the needs of coastal communities. Therefore, the adoption of an human rights-based approach to ocean sustainability by IPOS will be crucial for making co-production effective and ensuring the success of the platform's work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.044 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".