Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 164 references

A dialectical paradigm held in conversation, not resolution, can reorient risk science from prediction toward flourishing, with six 'seeds' as the feedback loops that would enact it.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 11:58 UTC pith:G6IV7XYG

load-bearing objection A well-read, genuinely synthetic perspective on risk science whose six 'seeds' are a useful reframing—but Section 7's theory of change is asserted rather than specified. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19685 v1 pith:G6IV7XYG submitted 2026-07-22 physics.soc-ph cs.SIstat.AP

From risk to flourishing: Seeds for responding to a complex world

Ryan M. McGranaghan , Elisabeth H. Krueger , Alexandre Dunant , Guillaume Falmagne , Lynee L. Turek-Hankins , Sara M. Constantino , Raissa D'Souza , Elke U. Weber
show 1 more author
Graydon W. Manzke
This is my paper
classification physics.soc-ph cs.SIstat.AP PACS 89.65.-s
keywords complexityrisk scienceflourishingresiliencedialecticsocio-ecological-technological systemsdeep uncertaintycare
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This perspective paper argues that risk science should stop treating its subject as separable, predictable hazards and instead orient itself toward flourishing: the collective actualization of all beings' good. To get there, the authors propose a dialectical paradigm that holds three long-standing tensions in risk science—physical|social, determinism|uncertainty, contextuality|generality—in conversation rather than forcing a resolution. From that paradigm they derive six practical 'seeds' (interdependence, responsivity, participation, pluralism, openness, ongoingness) meant to operate as feedback loops that create systemic change in how research is done. The payoff, if the argument holds, is a science better matched to the deep uncertainty, non-ergodicity, and socio-ecological-technological entanglement of 21st-century risks, and better able to guide collective action toward resilience and flourishing.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the crises of contemporary risk science stem from an underlying fragmentation—reducing, segregating, specializing, and settling—that prevents science from engaging the world as it is: an interdependent socio-ecological-technological system. It argues that by consciously adopting a dialectical paradigm, treating traditional oppositions not as binary choices but as indivisible dualities whose tension generates new insight, risk science can evolve into a 'complex risk science' capable of serving collective flourishing. The three dialectics—physical|social, determinism|uncertainty, contextuality|generality—are revisited jointly through the lens of complexity sci

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the dialectical paradigm: a mode of inquiry that deliberately holds opposing constructs in conversation rather than resolving them, exemplified by the three dualities physical|social, determinism|uncertainty, and contextuality|generality. The paper treats each '|' as an indivisible duality and claims that emergent understanding arises in the space between them. The six seeds are presented as dispositions and daily practices that generate feedback loops, which the paper, following systems thinking, identifies as the basic operating unit through which systemic change occurs. Together the dialectics act as scaffolding for collective exploration, and the seeds as the ena

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the six seeds—interdependence, responsivity, participation, pluralism, openness, ongoingness—will, via feedback loops, actually move risk science and society toward flourishing; the paper asserts this causal chain in Section 7 but provides no empirical or mechanistic evidence that these practices produce the claimed systemic change.

What would settle it

A decade-long controlled comparison of research teams that fully adopt all six seeds against teams using current predictive risk-science methods, tracking the accuracy, credibility, and community uptake of their risk guidance under deep uncertainty; or a case where a fully participatory, care-centered risk process demonstrably leads to worse disaster outcomes than a traditional statistical risk model—either result would undercut the central claim that the seeds create feedbacks toward flourishing.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the dialectical paradigm is adopted, risk models would shift from deterministic prediction to 'response technologies' that emphasize adaptive preparedness and continuous re-evaluation under deep uncertainty.
  • The three dialectics would jointly reshape research design: risk assessments would routinely incorporate social and cultural dimensions, plan for non-ergodicity and deep uncertainty, and deliberately move between local context and generalizable structure.
  • Enacting the six seeds would change the organization of science—creating boundary-crossing collectives, shared knowledge commons, and evaluation metrics that reward care, participation, and pluralism rather than individual output or predictive accuracy alone.
  • The 'crisis discipline' framing implies that risk science would accept acting before all information is known, prioritizing robustness, flexibility, and ongoing learning over optimization.
  • If flourishing replaces resilience as the guiding ideal, the goal of risk science becomes enabling systems to realize potential under change, not merely return to a prior state.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The dialectical template could be exported to other crisis disciplines—medicine, ecology, cybersecurity—where similar pairs might yield analogous seed practices.
  • Inference: If the seeds' feedback-loop claim is right, research evaluation systems that measure only publications, citations, or predictive skill would actively suppress the paradigm shift; a testable proxy is whether teams funded by process-oriented grants produce more adaptive risk responses than teams funded by traditional grants.
  • Inference: The paper's stance implies a research agenda: operationalize 'flourishing' as a measurable system property and test whether participatory, care-centered risk practices actually increase it over time—a claim the paper asserts but does not yet evidence.
  • Inference: The 2025 California wildfire example suggests a concrete extension: re-run that event's risk assessment with an interdependency-aware, participatory model to see whether the predicted hazard maps and community outcomes improve relative to the closed-source maps used.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This perspective paper argues that risk science should be reoriented from prediction, separation, and control toward a normative commitment to the flourishing of socio-ecological-technological systems (SETS). The authors propose a dialectical paradigm that holds three longstanding tensions in conversation—physical|social, determinism|uncertainty, and contextuality|generality—and derive from it six 'seeds' (interdependence, responsivity, participation, pluralism, openness, ongoingness) that are intended to enact the paradigm. They illustrate the argument through the 2025 Eaton/Palisades fires and Hurricane Katrina, and conclude with institutional recommendations around research collectives, knowledge commons, and an ethic of care. The paper is presented as a perspective rather than an empirical study; its central claim is that enacting these seeds will, via feedback loops, move risk science and society toward flourishing.

Significance. If accepted as a programmatic vision, the paper makes a useful synthesis of complexity science, risk and resilience research, and normative theory. Its strengths are the explicit normative grounding, the dialectical reframing of familiar tensions, and the practical vocabulary of six seeds that can orient researchers and practitioners. The case illustrations (Eaton/Palisades, Katrina) ground the argument concretely, and the call for collectives, commons, and care is thoughtfully developed. However, the paper's central causal claim—that the six seeds will generate the feedbacks needed to transform risk science—is asserted rather than demonstrated. As it stands, the contribution is best read as a research agenda or provocation, not a worked-out theory of change. The paper does not ship code or empirical validation, but its perspective-style contribution could still be valuable if the authors more carefully delimit the status of their claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7 (An Emergent Theory of Change)] The text asserts that 'to establish a new paradigm requires identification of the feedbacks...' and that the six seeds 'will create feedbacks leading to the dialectical paradigm.' However, no feedback loop is ever specified. The seeds are described as dispositions ('Interdependence is about thinking and acting relationally'), not as causal mechanisms with variables, links, or interactions. This is a non-sequitur: listing dispositions does not identify the feedback structure the paper itself claims is necessary. Because Section 7 is the only bridge from seeds to the desired outcome, the programmatic argument rests on an unspecified mechanism. Please either propose candidate feedback loops (e.g., how participation might change institutional incentives, how openness might increase trust and uptake) or explicitly frame the claim as a hypothesis to be tested.
  2. [Sections 5 and 7] There is an unresolved circularity in the relationship between the paradigm and the seeds. Section 5 says the dialectical paradigm and flourishing 'together... suggest six seeds,' while Section 7 says the seeds 'will create feedbacks leading to the dialectical paradigm.' The direction of causation is ambiguous: are the seeds products of the paradigm, pathways to it, or both? If both, this co-constitution should be stated explicitly rather than presented as a linear theory of change. This matters because the central claim depends on the logical status of the seeds.
  3. [Section 5 (From Risk to Flourishing)] Flourishing is defined normatively as 'the actualization of all beings toward their good' and is acknowledged to be 'difficult to measure' (citing VanderWeele et al. 2025), but no operational indicators, metrics, or evaluation criteria are integrated into the framework. Without a statement of what would count as evidence (even qualitative), the claim that the six seeds 'promote flourishing' is unfalsifiable. For a perspective this is acceptable if the claim is explicitly normative; please state that empirical evaluation is future work, or connect the cited measures to the framework.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2] Some labels are typeset incorrectly: 'Participa tionHegemony' splits the word, and 'Open'/'Closed' labels are unclear. Please fix the typesetting and ensure each seed is visually paired with its contrast.
  2. [Section 6, epigraph] 'Jorge Luis Borge' should be 'Jorge Luis Borges.'
  3. [Section 6, reference] The in-text citation '[IPC, 2012]' does not match the reference list entry, which is the IPCC SREX report; should be '[IPCC, 2012]'.
  4. [Section 8, reference] The in-text citation '[Lar, 1993]' appears to refer to the 'An ethic of care' chapter edited by Mary Jeanne Larrabee; the citation key should be '[Larrabee, 1993]'.
  5. [Section 2, reference] 'Cavalo and Ireland, 2014'—please verify the spelling of the first author (possibly 'Cavallo').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the paper is a normative/programmatic perspective, not a derivation with predictions reducible to inputs.

full rationale

This is a perspective essay, not a calculation or empirical derivation. The central move—adopting flourishing as a normative frame, proposing a dialectical paradigm, and offering six seeds as practices—is a proposal, not a prediction. The seeds are not fitted to data, and no equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a result. The sentence in Section 7 that the six seeds 'will create feedbacks leading to the dialectical paradigm' is an asserted causal/mechanistic claim, but it does not reduce to a definition: the seeds are described as dispositions or practices, not as formal variables defined by the paradigm's feedback structure. That absence of mechanism is a correctness or falsifiability weakness, not circularity. The internal loop noted by the reader—flourishing motivates the paradigm, the paradigm suggests seeds, and the seeds are said to promote flourishing—is a closed normative structure typical of a perspective piece, but the paper does not claim to derive flourishing empirically from the seeds. Self-citations (e.g., McGranaghan 2024; Krueger et al. 2019, 2022, 2025a/b) are used as contextual support for complexity science and SETS framing, not as load-bearing proof of the central proposal. Independent grounding is provided by cited external work (Nussbaum, Woods, Ostrom, Beck, complexity science, case examples such as the Eaton/Palisades fires and Katrina). No circular step can be exhibited, so the score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on normative and domain assumptions rather than free parameters; no numbers are fitted. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; 'complex risk science' and the six seeds are framings, not postulated mechanisms.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Flourishing is the actualization of all beings toward their good, individually and collectively.
    Section 1 and Section 5 assert this as the starting point; the paper does not defend it against alternative ethical frameworks.
  • domain assumption The world is constituted by socio-ecological-technological systems whose interdependence is the fundamental condition for risk.
    Section 4 states 'It is a fact that our world is constituted by SETS...' The paper treats this as settled; it is a strong ontological claim.
  • domain assumption Many SETS are non-ergodic, so past data cannot bound future risk.
    Section 6: 'many SETS are non-ergodic: they do not revisit prior states'; this is a widely argued but not universally accepted modeling assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper A dialectical paradigm and the six seeds will produce feedbacks leading risk science toward flourishing.
    Section 7 asserts 'the six seeds ... will create feedbacks leading to the dialectical paradigm'; this causal claim is the load-bearing hope of the paper and is not independently evidenced.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22706 in / 8915 out tokens · 90059 ms · 2026-08-01T11:58:30.736954+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Flourishing is the actualization of all beings toward their good -- not only individually but collectively, answering the question of `how do we live well with and for each other?'. In science as in society, the tendency to reduce, segregate, specialize, and settle has precluded embracing the concept of flourishing as a guiding principle. We aim to identify an approach to risk science research that promotes the flourishing of socio-ecological-technological systems (SETS). We discuss the normative role of an orientation toward flourishing for the field of risk science. We explore the possibility that (risk) science could be done in a way that is capable of pointing society toward a different future, one more resilient and more capable of flourishing. Our exploration mirrors the conversational nature of flourishing itself: examine ideologies traditionally believed to be rigidly in opposition and consider what emerges in the space(s) and conversation between them. We call this a dialectical approach. Within this paradigm grounded in conversation, pluralism, and pragmatism, we revisit three longstanding tensions in risk science: physical$|$social, determinism$|$uncertainty, contextuality$|$generality. Although these tensions are not new, revisiting them together through the lens of complexity science, and with explicit attention to the normative commitments that shape risk research, reveals underexplored possibilities for the field. Examining them in conversation with the other allows us to explore the provisional seeds for what might be termed complex risk science: interdependence, responsivity, participation, pluralism, openness, and ongoingness. Enacting the dialectical paradigm towards a risk science for a flourishing world will depend on creating collectives toward complex risk science, supporting them with skillfully governed commons, and centering care in our research.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19685 by Alexandre Dunant, Elisabeth H. Krueger, Elke U. Weber, Graydon W. Manzke, Guillaume Falmagne, Lynee L. Turek-Hankins, Raissa D'Souza, Ryan M. McGranaghan, Sara M. Constantino.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Within the landscape of interconnected socio-ecological-technological systems (SETS), understanding and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: This perspective adopts flourishing as a normative frame and dialectic as the paradigm. Together they suggest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

164 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , title =

    Ackoff, Russell L. , title =

  2. [2]

    , title =

    Adams, J. , title =. Routledge Handbook of Risk Studies , editor =. 2016 , edition =

    2016

  3. [3]

    , title =

    Allen, Danielle S. , title =

  4. [4]

    Allen, Danielle , title =

  5. [5]

    Anderson, P. W. , title =. Science , volume =. 1972 , doi =

    1972

  6. [6]

    Our Democratic Future, Reith Lectures , series =

    Ansell, Ben , title =. Our Democratic Future, Reith Lectures , series =. 2023 , note =

    2023

  7. [7]

    and Kirchhoff, Christine J

    Arnott, James C. and Kirchhoff, Christine J. and Meyer, Ryan M. and Meadow, Alison M. and Bednarek, Angela T. , title =. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability , volume =. 2020 , month = feb, publisher =

    2020

  8. [8]

    Arthur, W. B. , title =. Nat Rev Phys , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  9. [9]

    Bak-Coleman, J. B. and others , title =. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  10. [10]

    Ballew, M. T. and Leiserowitz, A. and Roser-Renouf, C. and Rosenthal, S. A. and Kotcher, J. E. and Marlon, J. R. and Lyon, E. and Goldberg, M. H. and Maibach, E. W. , title =. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  11. [11]

    and Ritter, M

    Beck, U. and Ritter, M. , title =

  12. [12]

    , title =

    Bednar, J. , title =. Daedalus , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  13. [13]

    Benjamin, Ruha , title =

  14. [14]

    , title =

    Benyus, Janine M. , title =

  15. [15]

    and Parshani, R

    Buldyrev, S. and Parshani, R. and Paul, G. and others , title =. Nature , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  16. [16]

    2016 , doi =

    Routledge Handbook of Risk Studies , publisher =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  17. [17]

    and Ma, Zhao and Kassab, Ghada N

    Krueger, Elisabeth H. and Ma, Zhao and Kassab, Ghada N. and Schulte-Römer, Nona , year=. Reframing resilience-oriented urban water management: learning from social–ecological–technological system interactions and uncertainties in a water-scarce city , volume=. doi:10.1017/sus.2025.17 , journal=

    work page doi:10.1017/sus.2025.17 2025

  18. [18]

    and Luederitz, C

    Caniglia, G. and Luederitz, C. and von Wirth, T. and others , title =. Nat Sustain , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  19. [19]

    and Ireland, V

    Cavalo, A. and Ireland, V. , title =. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction , volume =

  20. [20]

    Chambers, J. M. and Wyborn, C. and Ryan, M. E. and others , title =. Nat Sustain , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  21. [21]

    Chester, M. V. and Miller, T. R. and Muñoz-Erickson, T. A. and others , title =. npj Urban Sustain , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  22. [22]

    and others , title =

    Centeno, Miguel A. and others , title =. Annual Review of Sociology , volume =. 2015 , publisher =

    2015

  23. [23]

    West , title =

    Churchman, C. West , title =. Management Science , volume =. 1967 , doi =

    1967

  24. [24]

    Clark, Susan and Teachout, Woden , title =

  25. [25]

    , title =

    Corburn, J. , title =. Journal of Planning Education and Research , volume =. 2003 , doi =

    2003

  26. [26]

    Collier, W. M. and others , title =. Environmental Hazards , volume =. 2009 , doi =

    2009

  27. [27]

    and Weber, Elke U

    Constantino, Sara M. and Weber, Elke U. , title =. Current opinion in psychology , volume =

  28. [28]

    Danziger, M. M. and Shekhtman, L. M. and Bashan, A. and Berezin, Y. and Havlin, S. , title =. Interconnected Networks , editor =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  29. [29]

    Davis, Dána-Ain and Craven, Christa , title =

  30. [30]

    de Beauvoir, Simone , title =

  31. [31]

    2025 , note =

    Dolan, Tom , title =. 2025 , note =

    2025

  32. [32]

    Douglas, M. A. and Wildavsky, A. , title =

  33. [33]

    and Farrell, H

    Eliassi-Rad, T. and Farrell, H. and Garcia, D. and others , title =. Humanit Soc Sci Commun , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  34. [34]

    AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts , volume =

    Emanuel, Kerry , title =. AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts , volume =. 2024 , url =

    2024

  35. [35]

    and Morchain, D

    Few, R. and Morchain, D. and Spear, D. and others , title =. Palgrave Commun , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  36. [36]

    Issues in Science and Technology , volume =

    Finn, Ed , title =. Issues in Science and Technology , volume =. 2025 , month =

    2025

  37. [37]

    and Webber, S

    Findlater, K. and Webber, S. and Kandlikar, M. and others , title =. Nat. Clim. Chang. , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  38. [38]

    Ecology and Society , volume =

    Folke, Carl and others , title =. Ecology and Society , volume =. 2016 , url =

    2016

  39. [39]

    and Polasky, S

    Folke, C. and Polasky, S. and Rockstr. Our future in the Anthropocene biosphere , journal =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  40. [40]

    and Knowles, S

    Fortun, K. and Knowles, S. G. and Choi, V. and Jobin, P. and Matsumoto, M. and de la Torre III, P. and Liboiron, M. and Murillo, L. F. R. , title =. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies , editor =. 2017 , edition =

    2017

  41. [41]

    and Kuhlicke, C

    Fuchs, S. and Kuhlicke, C. and Meyer, V. , title =. Nat Hazards , volume =. 2011 , doi =

    2011

  42. [42]

    Natural Hazards , volume =

    Fuchs, Sven and Birkmann, Jörn and Glade, Thomas , title =. Natural Hazards , volume =

  43. [43]

    Fuller, R. B. , title =. Portfolio Art News Ann. , volume =

  44. [44]

    Issues in Science and Technology , volume =

    Gentemann, Chelle and Erdmann, Christopher and Kroeger, Caitlin , title =. Issues in Science and Technology , volume =. 2022 , month =

    2022

  45. [45]

    and Bowles, S

    Gintis, H. and Bowles, S. and Boyd, R. and Fehr, E. , title =. Evol Hum Behav , volume =

  46. [46]

    Gramsci, Antonio , title =

  47. [47]

    1987 , note =

    Habermas, Jurgen , title =. 1987 , note =

    1987

  48. [48]

    LA Times , year =

    Haggerty, Noah and Poston, Ben and Greene, Sean , title =. LA Times , year =

  49. [49]

    Haimes, Y. Y. , title =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  50. [50]

    2014 , month = may, number =

    Hallegatte, Stéphane , title =. 2014 , month = may, number =

    2014

  51. [51]

    and others , title =

    Hastings, A. and others , title =. Science , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  52. [52]

    San Jose Mercury News , year =

    Hawking, Stephen , title =. San Jose Mercury News , year =

  53. [53]

    , title =

    Helbing, D. , title =. Nature , volume =. 2013 , month = may, day =. doi:10.1038/nature12047 , pmid =

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12047 2013

  54. [54]

    and Heine, S

    Henrich, J. and Heine, S. J. and Norenzayan, A. , title =. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , volume =. 2010 , doi =

    2010

  55. [55]

    and Ostrom, E

    Hess, Charlotte M. and Ostrom, E. , title =

  56. [56]

    Environmental Research Letters , volume =

    Higuera Roa, Oscar and others , title =. Environmental Research Letters , volume =. 2025 , publisher =

    2025

  57. [57]

    Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation

    Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (. 2012 , pages =

    2012

  58. [58]

    2023 , pages =

    IPCC , title =. 2023 , pages =

    2023

  59. [59]

    Kates, R. W. and Travis, W. R. and Wilbanks, T. J. , title =. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. , volume =. 2012 , doi =

    2012

  60. [60]

    Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences , volume =

    Keller, Klaus and Helgeson, Casey and Srikrishnan, Vivek , title =. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences , volume =. 2021 , doi =

    2021

  61. [61]

    and Unverzagt, K

    Klein, A. and Unverzagt, K. and Alba, R. and Donges, J. F. and Hertz, T. and Krueger, T. and Lindkvist, E. and Martin, R. and Niew. From situated knowledges to situated modelling: a relational framework for simulation modelling , journal =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  62. [62]

    Global Environmental Change , volume =

    Kriegler, Elmar and others , title =. Global Environmental Change , volume =. 2012 , publisher =

    2012

  63. [63]

    Krueger, E. H. and Constantino, S. M. and Centeno, M. A. and others , title =. npj Urban Sustain , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  64. [64]

    Scientific Background on the Nobel Prize in Physics 2021: For Groundbreaking Contributions to Our Understanding of Complex Physical Systems , year =

    2021

  65. [65]

    An Ethic of Care: Feminist and Interdisciplinary Perspectives , booktitle =

  66. [66]

    and O'Brien, K

    Leichenko, R. and O'Brien, K. , title =

  67. [67]

    Lempert, R. J. and Schlesinger, M. E. and Bankes, S. C. , title =. Climatic Change , volume =. 1996 , doi =

    1996

  68. [68]

    and Ugolnik, Zachary , title =

    Levi, M. and Ugolnik, Zachary , title =. Daedalus , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  69. [69]

    Loewenstein, G. F. and Weber, E. U. and Hsee, C. K. and Welch, N. , title =. Psychol Bull , volume =. 2001 , month = mar, doi =

    2001

  70. [70]

    Madhavan, Guru , title =

  71. [71]

    Markolf, S. A. and Chester, M. V. and Eisenberg, D. A. and Iwaniec, D. M. and Davidson, C. I. and Zimmerman, R. and Miller, T. R. and Ruddell, B. L. and Chang, H. , title =. Earth's Future , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  72. [72]

    McGranaghan, R. M. , title =. Space Sci Rev , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  73. [73]

    One Earth , volume =

    McPhearson, Timon and others , title =. One Earth , volume =. 2022 , publisher =

    2022

  74. [74]

    , title =

    Meadows, Donella H. , title =

  75. [75]

    Meiler, Simona and others , title =. Sci. Adv. , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  76. [76]

    Moore, M. L. and Wang-Erlandsson, L. and Bodin, Ö. and others , title =. Nat Water , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  77. [77]

    and Meerow, S

    Moser, S. and Meerow, S. and Arnott, J. and others , title =. Climatic Change , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  78. [78]

    2015 , doi =

    Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science , publisher =. 2015 , doi =

    2015

  79. [79]

    2019 , doi =

    Fostering the Culture of Convergence in Research: Proceedings of a Workshop , publisher =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  80. [80]

    2020 , url =

    Civic Signals Project , howpublished =. 2020 , url =

    2020

Showing first 80 references.