Cause-effect analysis for sustainable development policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The sustainable development goals (SDGs) launched by the United Nations (UN) set a new direction for development covering the environmental, economic, and social pillars. Given the complex and interdependent nature of the socioeconomic and environmental systems, however, understanding the cause-effect relationships between policy actions and their outcomes on SDGs remains as a challenge. We provide a systematic review of cause-effect analysis literature in the context of quantitative sustainability assessment. The cause-effect analysis literature in both social and natural sciences has significantly gained its breadth and depth, and some of the pioneering applications have begun to address sustainability challenges. We focus on randomized experiment studies, natural experiments, observational studies, and time-series methods, and the applicability of these approaches to quantitative sustainability assessment with respect to the plausibility of the assumptions, limitations and the data requirements. Despite the promising developments, however, we find that quantifying the sustainability consequences of a policy action, and providing unequivocal policy recommendations based on it is still a challenge. We recognize some of the key data requirements and assumptions necessary to design formal experiments as the bottleneck for conducting scientifically defensible cause-effect analysis in the context of quantitative sustainability assessment. Our study calls for the need of multi-disciplinary effort to develop an operational framework for quantifying the sustainability consequences of policy actions. In the meantime, continued efforts need to be made to advance other modeling platforms such as mechanistic models and simulation tools. We highlighted the importance of understanding and properly communicating the uncertainties associated with such models, regular monitoring and feedback on the consequences of policy actions to the modelers and decision-makers, and the use of what-if scenarios in the absence of well-formulated cause-effect analysis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".