The Possibility of Uniting Risk Management and Adaptive Co-Management – Envisioning Adaptive Collaborative Risk Management (ACRM) for Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communities are increasingly confronted with the need to identify, characterize and respond to the global challenges of climate change. Risk management is a well established tool for climate change adaptation, but critical questions about past management techniques and the emergence of ‘alternative approaches ’ raise possibilities for novel new directions. This paper conceptually explores the synergies from combining risk management as a tool for climate change adaptation with adaptive co-management as a governance strategy. The possibility of uniting the two approaches is envisioned using the Canadian Standards Association’s (CSA) current standard for effective risk management. An approach termed adaptive collaborative risk management (ACRM) is proposed as an outcome. ACRM offers considerable innovation because it addresses both technical and governance concerns associated with climate change adaptation in a single process.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".