MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301607506 · doi:10.3152/147154606781765147

Sustainability assessment: basic components of a practical approach

2006· article· en· W2301607506 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityWork (physics)AttractivenessSustainability organizationsStrategic environmental assessmentKey (lock)Management scienceBusinessProcess managementEnvironmental impact assessmentRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceEngineeringEconomicsPolitical scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last few years have brought many experiments with forms of sustainability assessment, applied at the strategic and project levels by governments, private-sector firms, civil society organizations and various combinations. The attractiveness of the work so far suggests that it is now time to prepare for comprehensive adoption and more consistent application of the requirements and processes. The key first steps in sustainability assessment regime design are addressed in this paper. They centre on the basic sustainability requirements that should inform a transition to sustainability assessment; the main implications of these requirements for sustain-ability assessment decision criteria and trade-off rules; how to incorporate proper attention to the specific circumstances of applications into particular cases and contexts; and, more generally, how to design practical sustainability assessment regimes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.378 · 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