Cross-disciplinary Perspectives on Developing Global Datasets and Indicators for Monitoring Climate Change Education and Communication (CCE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate change education and communications (CCE) has long been recognized as a critical vehicle for increasing human and institutional capacity to mitigate against further climate change and to adapt to its impact. However, the global community lacks robust cross-national data and global indicators to measure and monitor progress in the planning, implementation, and delivery of CCE at the national and intergovernmental levels. This paper offers a synthesis of insights from interdisciplinary literature on indicator development conducted across the areas of education, education for sustainable development (ESD), communication and biodiversity and climate change. Bringing together independent histories of developing indicators for global benchmarking and target setting supports insights for the more nascent area at their intersections, that is, CCE. On the basis of the literature review, the orientation of ideal indicators could be synthesized as a guiding idea for indicator development. Ideal indicators have real-world congruence and are built on feasible data elicitation; they facilitate solutions for climate change and leverage political and public attention. In this article’s conclusion, we identify key challenges that can compromise indicators in the context of CCE (e.g., “smallest common denominator” -solutions) as well as possible countermeasures against these challenges.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".