MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412661935 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113940

Advancing ecosystem service monitoring by mapping the current use of essential ecosystem service variables

2025· article· en· W4412661935 on OpenAlexafffund
Sebastian Theis, Flavio Affinito, Peter S. Rodriguez, Marie-Josée Fortin, Andrew Gonzalez

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEcosystem servicesEcosystemService (business)Current (fluid)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceBusinessEcologyBiologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Essential variables are a well-established tool to support the calculation of ecological indicators. The recently conceptualized Essential Ecosystem Service Variables (EESVs) are regrouped into six classes – Ecological Supply , Demand , Use , Relational Value , Instrumental Value , and Anthropogenic Contribution – designed to capture changes in the multiple dimensions of ecosystem services. Prior to the proposal to monitor ecosystem services using EESVs, many variables relevant to these classes were already used in ecosystem services studies. Here, we perform a systematic retrospective analysis across disciplines to determine the potential of EESV classes for monitoring ecosystem services effectively. We conducted a comprehensive keyword search across 439 studies, based on a review paper on ecosystem services. Network analyses revealed that Anthropogenic Contribution had the highest overall presence based on odds ratios, while Relational Value was the least represented, often showing interdependencies with other classes and low network connectivity and centrality. Network centrality metrics identified Ecological Supply as the most interconnected class, reflecting its foundational role across studies. Journal analysis across seven major journal types showed a good overall distribution of EESV classes across fields, while still emphasizing disciplinary priorities. Urban journals focused more on Anthropogenic Contribution and Relational Value while biological journals prioritized Ecological Supply . Agricultural journals often highlighted Use and Demand as well as Instrumental Value and management and policy journals emphasized Instrumental Value . Addressing gaps in EESV class coverage stresses that underrepresented classes like Relational Value are empirically grounded and measurable, yet these classes are essential for monitoring both the ecological and socio-cultural dimensions of ecosystem services.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0290.023
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207