Indigenous Peoples' Major Group: SDG 11 – Make cities and human settlements inclusive [Statement]
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The 2018 High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development (HLPF) took place from 9–18 July at the UN Headquarters in New York under the theme: “Transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies”. The 2018 HLPF focused on the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Goal 6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all Goal 11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable Goal 12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, that will be considered each year Statement made at the Forum by Suzanne Ingram in relation to Sustainable Development Goal 11 IPMG: SDG 11 – Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable My name is Suzanne Ingram, I am Wiradjuri from Australia. I acknowledge the traditional custodians on whose lands I address this esteemed forum today. The Indigenous Peoples Major Group is concerned that, while the words of SDG 11 may seem to present a neutral impact, neoliberal political economies rely on concepts that reconstitute who we are as Indigenous Peoples without our input or consent. In wealthy settler nations such as Australia, Canada and the United States, the majority of Indigenous Peoples – as much as 71% - live in metropolitan areas. Homogenised cities impede capacity to co-create nurturing communities: urban and regional planning initiatives and notions of ‘progress’, demand a certain type of subjectivity. Indigenous Peoples are thus reframed and steered by patriarchal and capitalistic values. In this process, states too often abscond from their responsibilities to us as equal citizens, especially those most affected: Indigenous women and children, particularly in regard to affordable housing and homelessness from domestic violence, people with disabilities, young people and elderly. (RECOMMENDATION) A rights framework makes it known that Indigenous Peoples must be recognised for who we are, with all the inherent citizenship and treaty-underscored rights intact, in whatever location we live within our respective countries. Moderator, such rights may be understood by the state as tied to specific lands and territories, however, we remind the High Level Political Forum that our identities as Indigenous Peoples do not pause at the edge of a colonially contrived frontier. The Indigenous Peoples Major Group implores this esteemed forum to affirm that better urban planning and management is: localised and regenerative in fiscal, ecological and social accord. Thank you for your time.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,014 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».