Strategic thinking for sustainable development
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 The idea of this editorial research article is to start making sense out of the seemingly limitless debate on the environmental dimension of sustainable development. We have evaluated a collection of international peer‐reviewed papers. These contributions have been debated at the conferences of the International Sustainable Development Research Society (ISDRS). Our main research objective here is to consider the often posed question of why the progress made in sustainable development has been so slow and the work implemented so unsuccessful. We argue that one of the main explanations is that the approaches used in sustainable development are reductionist and often lead into problem shifting and problem displacement. To address the problem of reductionism, we propose what we call ‘strategic thinking’ and its incorporation into sustainable development work in general. To open up this argument, we arrive at the discussion of three central dimensions of strategic thinking and the relevance of these dimensions when addressing reductionism. These dimensions are the strategy content, strategy process and strategy context. Copyright © 2010 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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