Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper looks at different experiences in the development and use of societal progress indicator sets – at the European, national and sub-national level – with the aim of identifying useful lessons from these experiences. Five case studies are presented: the indicators used to support the EU ?Lisbon Strategy?; the UK Sustainable Development indicators; Measures of Australia?s Progress; Measuring Ireland?s Progress; and an example of a local community indicator initiative – the Santa Cruz Community Assessment Programme, in California. The paper concludes that for societal progress indicators to be used and applied in decision-making processes, then three conditions need to be met. First, the indicators should be seen as legitimate by the intended users. Second, the indicators should be set within a wider system that provides =fit-for-purpose‘ information. Third, an appropriate incentive structure must be in place for stakeholders to act on that information.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".