MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7101418729 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v27i1.8640

Building adaptive capacity and climate change resiliency in rural communities

2025· article· W7101418729 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInvertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changePreparednessAction planVulnerability (computing)Plan (archaeology)Climate change adaptationCommunity resilienceEffects of global warming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resilient rural communities are not only those that can adapt to changing socio-economic conditions, but are also plan for and adapt to a changing climate. Using a guidebook developed by the Canadian Model Forest Network, Black River First Nation (Manitoba) undertook a 3-year project to address risks to the community and their traditional area posed by climate change. The project involved a community core team which documented their observations of changes in climate and its impact on the community and traditional area over the last 50 years, developed historic and current climate profiles from meteorological data in the region, used climatic global circulation models to predict changes in climate in their traditional area to the year 2080 and assessed current and future risks. Based on the vulnerability assessment, the community developed an action plan to adapt to current and future changes in climate. Actions included updating their emergency preparedness and response plan, developing wildfire protection plans for the community and a nearby cottage subdivision they are planning, and upgrades to community infrastructure (drinking water and sewage treatment), among others. As a result of the project, more than $15 million has been invested in making the community more climate-resilient.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.808

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization FoundationSame topicInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyFrench-language works237,207