MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556357620 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000068

The importance of an integrating framework for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals: the example of health and well-being

2016· article· en· W2556357620 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

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentBusinessProcess managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development came into force in January 2016 as the central United Nations (UN) platform for achieving 'integrated and indivisible' goals and targets across the three characteristic dimensions of sustainable development: the social, environmental and economic. We argue that, despite the UN adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a framework for operationalising them in an integrated fashion is lacking. This article puts forth a framework for integrating health and well-being across the SDGs as both preconditions and outcomes of sustainable development. We present a rationale for this approach, and identify the challenges and opportunities for implementing and monitoring such a framework through a series of examples. We encourage other sectors to develop similar integrating frameworks for supporting a more coordinated approach for operationalising the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.337 · 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