Interdisciplinarity in Sustainability Studies: A Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This article offers an exploratory and descriptive analysis of the characteristics of inter‐disciplinary sustainability studies (ISSs). The paper explores the academic and disciplinary nature of inter‐disciplinary inquiry and studies themes, imperatives and methodologies, together with institutional characteristics. Our analysis of 70 articles published between 2003 and 2008 suggests that the publication of ISSs is growing and that this effort is largely based upon attempts to integrate aspects of different disciplines. These studies mostly relate to resource management studies and typically adopt qualitative, case study or mixed methodologies. The articles reviewed have a practical orientation, with nearly two‐thirds of studies explicitly addressing policy‐making issues, and over half cover the orientations, mechanisms and institutions towards people's participation in decision‐making. The research effort is typically made in Europe and North America, and by scholars working in inter‐disciplinary teams. The implications of these findings for research in, and the practice of, sustainability studies are discussed in conclusion. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it