MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414051917 · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104211

Exploring the use of adaptation tipping points: A systematic review of definitions, characteristics and applications

2025· article· en· W4414051917 on OpenAlex
Bregje van der Bolt, Raffaele Vignola, Solen Le Clec’h, Wouter Smolenaars

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Consistency (knowledge bases)Flexibility (engineering)Climate change adaptationSustainabilityConceptual frameworkEmpirical researchClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptation Tipping Points (ATPs) are critical in adaptation pathway planning, marking thresholds where existing strategies fail, and requiring new approaches. Despite their importance, ATPs lack consistent definitions, leading to conceptual fragmentation. Following the lack of a systematic approach, existing research provides limited insights into how ATPs align with broader development trajectories, making their integration into adaptation strategies challenging. Addressing this gap requires a comprehensive characterization that clarifies how ATPs have been applied in scientific literature, ensuring consistency while allowing for context-specific adaptations. To this end, we systematically analyse and consolidate existing research on ATP definitions, methods, and outputs, laying the groundwork for a standardized approach to ATPs in climate change adaptation planning. We identify four primary ATP categories (policy-based, acceptance-based, transition-based, and opportunity-based), each representing distinct thresholds shaped by governance, societal acceptance, systemic transitions, and strategic opportunities. These categories are characterized by differences in system dynamics, triggering events, consequences, adaptation drivers, and goals, defining distinct trajectories and objectives for each category in adaptation pathway planning. Furthermore, we show that the application of different ATP categories is independent of specific contexts, methods or outcomes, highlighting the flexibility of different categories across climate change adaptation planning processes. This study underscores the potential of ATPs to enhance cross-sectoral integration and facilitate the development of adaptation pathways. Ultimately, a more coherent application of ATPs can strengthen adaptation pathway planning by enabling timely interventions, accounting for systemic interdependencies, and aligning adaptation measures with broader sustainability goals in an integrated, system-wide framework.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.358
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.023 · 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