Final answer:
The concept of a strict formula for applying criteria of adequacy does not appear to be a standardized method and varies depending on context. Analyses between criteria tend to be broadly equivalent, accommodating the element of uncertainty. The emphasis on different attributes over others indicates these criteria may pertain to fields like resource assessment or environmental science.
Step-by-step explanation:
The notion that there is a strict formula for applying the criteria of adequacy could refer to a range of scientific or methodological contexts where criteria are used to assess the validity or effectiveness of a hypothesis, method, or model. However, based on the given information, it seems that these criteria are not universally applied, suggesting a certain level of flexibility or discretion in their use. This is underscored by the fact that analyses have shown to be broadly equivalent across different criteria, indicating that while there can be a general framework, specific applications may vary depending on the context, the data at hand, and the goals of the evaluation.
Furthermore, the incorporation of uncertainty into criteria indicates a nuanced approach which recognizes that absolute certainty is rarely attainable in scientific practice. The reference to attributes such as abundance, efficiency, and transportation capability, versus those like backyard criterion, acceptance, and ability to produce heat suggests that the criteria in question relate to resource assessment or environmental science, where different factors are weighed to determine the suitability or adequacy of, say, a renewable resource or a conservation strategy.