Bibliographic record
Abstract
The broader framing of the decision-making processes of stakeholders within the sustainability debate is explored in the context of a paradigm shift that acknowledges the world as a complex, dynamic system. There is merit in adopting a paradigm informed by, and therefore suitable for dealing with, living systems, particularly as the paradigm is founded on holistic and flexible strategies. To move the discussion forward, a key concern examined here is what this different paradigm means for engaging and motivating stakeholders. Through questioning established notions of ‘stakeholder’ as defined in the business literature, and the traditional models of sustainable development, an alternative model of sustainability is presented that is grounded in a different worldview. The implications are considered of how the paradigm's adoption and the associated model of sustainability would change current practices for motivating social transformation in the built environment through stakeholder engagement. Three major shifts in thinking implicit in such a new model of sustainability are identified and examined: creating effective change in the complex social–ecological system presented by the built environment; how this worldview would redefine current notions of stakeholder engagement; and what the implications would be for mechanisms such as assessment and rating tools meant to change stakeholder behaviour. Le cadre plus large des processus de prise de décision des parties prenantes dans le débat sur la durabilité est examiné dans le contexte d'un changement de paradigme qui admet le fait que le monde est un système complexe et dynamique. Il n'est pas sans intérêt d'adopter un paradigme s'appuyant sur les systèmes vivants, et convenant par conséquent à leur traitement, en particulier dans la mesure où ce paradigme est fondé sur des stratégies holistiques et souples. Pour faire avancer le débat, une préoccupation essentielle étudiée ici porte sur ce que ce paradigme différent signifie en termes d'engagement et de motivation des parties prenantes. Par la mise en cause des notions bien établies de « partie prenante » telles qu'elles sont définies dans les documents d'entreprise, et des modèles traditionnels de développement durable, il est présenté un modèle de durabilité alternatif qui est basé sur une vision du monde différente. Sont examinées les implications quant à la manière dont l'adoption de ce paradigme et le modèle de durabilité qui lui est associé modifieraient les pratiques actuelles pour stimuler la transformation sociale dans le cadre bâti par l'engagement des parties prenantes. Sont identifiés et examinés trois changements majeurs du mode de pensée qui sont implicites dans un tel modèle nouveau de durabilité: la création de changements effectifs dans le système socioécologique complexe que présente le cadre bâti; la manière dont cette vision du monde redéfinirait les notions actuelles d'engagement des parties prenantes; et ce que seraient les implications pour les mécanismes tels que les outils d'évaluation et de notation censés modifier le comportement des parties prenantes. Mots clés: évaluation, bâtiments, cadre bâti, complexité, changement de paradigme, régénérateur, parties prenantes, durabilité, systèmes complets
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 | 0.047 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".