Digital Resilience for the Climate Crisis: A Multi-Perspective Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary explores multiple perspectives on the potential use of digital technologies to improve organizational resilience in the context of climate change. Such an approach is needed to address this complex problem space, especially since it encompasses a wide variety of phenomena, including floods and landslides, disruptions to global supply chains, heat waves, biodiversity loss, greenhouse gas emissions, and food insecurity. We assembled a diverse set of five scholarly teams specializing in multiple problem topics, research approaches, and theoretical perspectives on this project. Each team identified and problematized a specific facet of digital resilience for the climate crisis. The perspectives cover a range of rich narratives, including digital resilience in the context of floods and landslides in Brazil and Indonesia, conceptual development efforts incorporating the natural environment with people and technology, reconceptualization of the problem space in terms of time and type, and two applications of digital resilience in the domains of global supply chains and carbon emissions tracking. This research commentary thus presents a multi-perspective examination and interrogation of digital resilience for addressing the climate crisis, out of which four transcending themes emerge: the need to integrate nature into sociotechnical thinking, the need to examine actions at both micro and macro levels, the need to include both reactive and proactive strategies, and the need to view climate crisis as a process rather than a series of events. This commentary aims to motivate other scholars who take diverse theoretical perspectives to join us in developing fundamental knowledge and practical solutions needed to achieve digital resilience for the climate crisis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".