, and feasible operationalizations into the ideal-type etic theoretical frameworks. However, these steps of the methodology are not of direct relevance to the jasp.12117 purpose of this article and will not be recounted. Readers interested in these extra steps are directed to the technical report produced for this project [3].Data collectionWe executed the above methodology on 35 research articles on local-level climate vulnerability that had been selected through the initial phases of systematic review. Details of these articles, and the search and screening process through which they were selected have been published previously [3]. We identified 358 article-specific constructs, 281 of which were defined and 155 of which were directly operationalized. We coded articles for the theoretical framework based on authors’ own declaration of which framework they were using and clustered articles on that basis. Subsequent inductive examination of articles was able to identify and correct for instances where authors’ declarations were inconsistent with one another. We were able to identify 114 framework-defining constructs and through analysis found that authors’ use of terms did not reliably predict common definition and that in some cases authors did not MS-275 site provide definitions sufficient to interpret and compare their constructs. Constructs that had the same name across papers were treated as suspected equivalents (n = 14). These 14 were inspected for within-uniformity through comparing article-specific definitions. This set of provisional constructs was then cross-compared with one another and with the remaining 100. Some of these were found to have equivalents that did not share the same name. To correct for inconsistencies in authors’ use of language we merged constructs SART.S23506 which were found to equivalent following inspection of definitions. Unfortunately, we were not able to use this method on all constructs, as definitions were not consistently provided in reports. We selected and reported framework-defining constructs using the corrections produced in the previous step. The subject matter expert inspected the corrections suggested through inductive study of the reports. Delaney et. al. [3] found that it was effective to work back and forth between expert opinion and inductively-generated evidence by a methodologically competent but subject-matter ignorant lead investigator in reaching consensus on both specification of buy U0126-EtOH frameworks and constructs.ResultsComparison of frameworks and constructs as defined by authors and as defined through systematic examination produces inconsistent results. This inconsistency calls into question the validity of assuming that authors’ use of the same words indicates common definitions/operationalizations and vice versa. For example, the common construct `Adaptive Capacity’, fully and transparently operationalized in only four articles, revealed four different paths of operationalization. This heterogeneity was found despite authors’ presenting definitions that suggest conceptual equivalence (see Table 3). A systematic approach to review that uses inductive methods, therefore, is valuable in flagging heterogeneity in nominally commensurable constructs and operationalizations, and in demonstrating where verifiably commensurable constructs, and their operationalizations, can be interchanged. Inductive examination of reports of primary research may be particularly useful in domains where the social dynamics that inform commensu., and feasible operationalizations into the ideal-type etic theoretical frameworks. However, these steps of the methodology are not of direct relevance to the jasp.12117 purpose of this article and will not be recounted. Readers interested in these extra steps are directed to the technical report produced for this project [3].Data collectionWe executed the above methodology on 35 research articles on local-level climate vulnerability that had been selected through the initial phases of systematic review. Details of these articles, and the search and screening process through which they were selected have been published previously [3]. We identified 358 article-specific constructs, 281 of which were defined and 155 of which were directly operationalized. We coded articles for the theoretical framework based on authors’ own declaration of which framework they were using and clustered articles on that basis. Subsequent inductive examination of articles was able to identify and correct for instances where authors’ declarations were inconsistent with one another. We were able to identify 114 framework-defining constructs and through analysis found that authors’ use of terms did not reliably predict common definition and that in some cases authors did not provide definitions sufficient to interpret and compare their constructs. Constructs that had the same name across papers were treated as suspected equivalents (n = 14). These 14 were inspected for within-uniformity through comparing article-specific definitions. This set of provisional constructs was then cross-compared with one another and with the remaining 100. Some of these were found to have equivalents that did not share the same name. To correct for inconsistencies in authors’ use of language we merged constructs SART.S23506 which were found to equivalent following inspection of definitions. Unfortunately, we were not able to use this method on all constructs, as definitions were not consistently provided in reports. We selected and reported framework-defining constructs using the corrections produced in the previous step. The subject matter expert inspected the corrections suggested through inductive study of the reports. Delaney et. al. [3] found that it was effective to work back and forth between expert opinion and inductively-generated evidence by a methodologically competent but subject-matter ignorant lead investigator in reaching consensus on both specification of frameworks and constructs.ResultsComparison of frameworks and constructs as defined by authors and as defined through systematic examination produces inconsistent results. This inconsistency calls into question the validity of assuming that authors’ use of the same words indicates common definitions/operationalizations and vice versa. For example, the common construct `Adaptive Capacity’, fully and transparently operationalized in only four articles, revealed four different paths of operationalization. This heterogeneity was found despite authors’ presenting definitions that suggest conceptual equivalence (see Table 3). A systematic approach to review that uses inductive methods, therefore, is valuable in flagging heterogeneity in nominally commensurable constructs and operationalizations, and in demonstrating where verifiably commensurable constructs, and their operationalizations, can be interchanged. Inductive examination of reports of primary research may be particularly useful in domains where the social dynamics that inform commensu.