MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409353615 · doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101726

Towards a unified ontology for monitoring ecosystem services

2025· article· en· W4409353615 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Flavio Affinito, Jennifer M. Holzer, Marie‐Josée Fortin, Andrew Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosystem Services · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBrock UniversityMcGill UniversityMontreal Biodome
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLiber Ero FoundationMitacs
KeywordsEcosystem servicesOntologyEcosystemEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceData scienceEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Operationalising the language of ecosystem services remains a barrier to progress. • A formal ontology that organises terms and data is needed to support operationalisation. • We propose a formal ontology for monitoring ecosystem services. • Conceptual clarity enables data integration and automation. • Collective efforts are required for the field to develop this tool further. Ecosystem services (ES) are an important part of global and national environmental policies. In this context, there is a call for the monitoring of ES to support their management. However, the proliferation of terms used within ES science is a barrier to standardised monitoring. Monitoring ES requires knowing exactly what variables to measure and how they relate to change in the states of ES. It further requires interoperability between methodologies used by information systems to operationalise data flows. Here, we aim to systematise the language used to define ES and the terminology used in their monitoring by developing an ontology for ES monitoring. Ontologies are tools that operationalise concepts and the relationships among terms used to define them. An ontology allows people and machines to use terms consistently. Building on advances in other disciplines, the ES monitoring ontology systematises the language of ES across major conceptual frameworks advancing conceptual clarity and operationalisation of ES. We test the ES monitoring ontology with data from three ES in British Columbia, Canada, to highlight how it can enable information sharing and monitoring. We show that the ontology can organise and retrieve information and data for ES monitoring in a systematic way. Our work contributes to advancing interoperability of ES, taking a step towards systematically understanding ES change with automated tools. We invite members of the ES community to join the effort of developing this ontology for ES so that can it contribute to the challenge of systematically monitoring change in social-ecological systems.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.004
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.009
Scholarly communication0.0140.029
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0040.007
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosystem ServicesSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207