MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W121186114

Social sustainability: a review and critique of traditional versus emerging themes and assessment methods

2009· review· en· W121186114 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial sustainabilitySustainabilitySustainability organizationsSustainability scienceContext (archaeology)SociologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years the social dimension (or ‘social sustainability’) has gained increased recognition as a fundamental component of sustainable development. Previous research on sustainability has been mostly limited to environmental and economic concerns. However, social sustainability has begun to attract interest in the Academia, receiving also political and institutional endorsement as part of the sustainable communities agenda and the urban sustainability discourse. thus, the paper explores the notion of social sustainability and its main assessment methods, together with the pioneering social sustainability framework devised by the City of Vancouver, Canada. The paper illustrates how there is no consensus on the definition of social sustainability because this concept is currently being approached from diverging study perspectives and discipline-specific criteria, which make a generalised definition difficult to achieve. In addition, traditional ‘hard’ social sustainability themes such as employment and poverty alleviation are increasingly been complemented or replaced by ‘soft’ and less measurable concepts such as happiness, social mixing and sense of place in the social sustainability debate. This is adding complexity to the analysis of social sustainability, especially from an assessment point of view. Within this context, the paper builds upon the recent ‘reductionist’ versus ‘integrated’ sustainability assessment debate and contends that there is paucity of social sustainability assessment methodologies as such. Indeed, at practical level, social sustainability assessment is often conducted (i) through social impact assessment (SIA), which is extended to incorporate biophysical and economical variables or (ii) by broadening the definition of ‘environment’ and hence the thematic coverage of theme-specific assessment such as SIA. In terms of indicators, the analysis suggests that the development of new sustainability indicators is increasingly focused on measuring emerging themes rather than on improving the assessment of more traditional concepts such as equity and fairness. Indeed, the latter continue to be measured mainly in terms of income distribution and other monetary variables, hampering a meaningful progress in the assessment of social sustainability. Within this context, the paper also pinpoints the main differences between ‘traditional’ and ‘sustainability’ indicators, suggesting a set of characteristics for the latter. Despite these hindrances, the paper looks at how Vancouver’s local authorities have approached urban social sustainability and discusses the importance of the selection of sustainability principles, objectives, themes, assessment techniques and indicators from a social perspective. Lastly, the paper concludes suggesting possible future directions within the social sustainability debate and the challenges that will have to be overcome to assess the progress toward sustainability. These include for example the examination of more elusive and ‘soft’ social concepts as larger sectors of communities and societies become more affluent and less worried about the satisfaction of basic needs, but also the increase of uncertainty concerning how different typologies of impact and assessment techniques should be integrated together.

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.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.015
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.369 · 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