MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Uncertainty, innovation, and dynamic sustainable development

2005· article· en· W218619863 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability Science Practice and Policy · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicComplex Systems and Decision Making
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentPrecautionary principleProcess (computing)BiosphereNatural (archaeology)OxymoronEco-efficiencyBusinessRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental ethicsEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer scienceEcologyLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable development is a rich concept that has helped shape the discussion of human society’s interaction with the biosphere. However, the term “sustainable development” is contentious, and some dismiss it outright as an oxymoron. The seemingly contradictory “sustainable” and “development” can be reconciled by accepting that due to two factors, the inherent complexity and uncertainty of human and natural systems, and the ability of human society to innovate, sustainable development must be dynamic. It must be an ongoing process, not a goal. A sustainable society must constantly evaluate its relationship with nature as it adopts new innovations and encounters unexpected events. The role of feedback and suitable application of the precautionary principle are key elements of a dynamic sustainable development process. The example of nuclear waste management in Canada demonstrates the beginning of such a process.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.396 · 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