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 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 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.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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