What Policy Evidence for a European Strategy of Sustainable Development in Mountain Regions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aspiration to implement evidence-based policies has led to an increased focus on quantitative indicators and targets defined at the European level as instruments for designing policy measures and assessing their impact. The authors argue that this constrains debate and has hindered the elaboration of a proactive European strategy for sustainable development in mountain regions. Mountain territories have highly diverse social, economic and physical characteristics; their shared traits in terms of ecological fragility, economic development challenges and exposure to natural hazards are not reflected in mainstream datasets. Two complementary instruments are proposed to produce and present evidence for sustainable resource management and processes: the Nexus Model and the Sustainability Profile Matrix. Both tools entail using evidence that is adapted to the social and economic characteristics, potentials and challenges of each locality or region. At the same time, they make compilations of evidence at the transnational and European levels possible. The objective is to enable local, national and transnational authorities to use territorial diversity as a lever in their policies, within multilevel governance in human, economic and natural resource management.
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 | 0.036 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".