MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2582050385 · doi:10.1111/isj.12138

Winning the SDG battle in cities: how an integrated information ecosystem can contribute to the achievement of the 2030 sustainable development goals

2017· article· en· W2582050385 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline Corbett, Sehl Mellouli

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Systems Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentSustainabilityAction (physics)PoliticsPolitical scienceBusinessEnvironmental planningManagement scienceKnowledge managementEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringComputer scienceEconomicsGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In 2015, the United Nations adopted an ambitious development agenda composed of 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), which are to be reached by 2030. Beyond SDG 11 concerning the development of sustainable cities, many of the SDGs target activities falling within the responsibility of local governments. Thus, cities will play a leading role in the achievement of these goals, and we argue that the information systems (IS) community must be an active partner in these efforts. This paper aims to contribute to the achievement of the SDGs by developing a conceptual model to explain the role of IS in building smart sustainable cities and providing a framework of action for IS researchers and city managers. To this end, we conduct grounded theory studies of two green IS used by an internationally recognized smart city to manage water quality and green space. Based on these findings, we articulate a model explaining how an integrated information ecosystem enables the interactions between three interrelated spheres – administrative, political and sustainability – to support the development of smart sustainable cities. Moving from theory to practice, we use two real‐world scenarios to demonstrate the applicability of the model. Finally, we define an action framework outlining key actions for cities and suggest corresponding questions for future research. Beyond a simple call‐to‐action, this work provides a much‐needed foundation for future research and practice leading to a sustainable future for all.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.018
Scholarly communication0.0270.027
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations162
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation Systems JournalSame topicSmart Cities and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207