MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617245930 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaafe3

Connecting the sustainable development goals by their energy inter-linkages

2018· article· en· W2617245930 on OpenAlexaff
David McCollum, L. Gomez Echeverri, Sebastian Busch, Shonali Pachauri, Simon Parkinson, Joeri Rogelj, Volker Krey, Jan C. Minx, Måns Nilsson, Anne‐Sophie Stevance, Keywan Riahi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeInternational Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisEuropean Commission
KeywordsSustainable developmentRelevance (law)Corporate governanceContext (archaeology)Political scienceManagement scienceEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEngineeringGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide guide-posts to society as it attempts to respond to an array of pressing challenges. One of these challenges is energy; thus, the SDGs have become paramount for energy policy-making. Yet, while governments throughout the world have already declared the SDGs to be 'integrated and indivisible', there are still knowledge gaps surrounding how the interactions between the energy SDG targets and those of the non-energy-focused SDGs might play out in different contexts. In this review, we report on a large-scale assessment of the relevant energy literature, which we conducted to better our understanding of key energy-related interactions between SDGs, as well as their context-dependencies (relating to time, geography, governance, technology, and directionality). By (i) evaluating the nature and strength of the interactions identified, (ii) indicating the robustness of the evidence base, the agreement of that evidence, and our confidence in it, and (iii) highlighting critical areas where better understanding is needed or context dependencies should be considered, our review points to potential ways forward for both the policy making and scientific communities. First, we find that positive interactions between the SDGs outweigh the negative ones, both in number and magnitude. Second, of relevance for the scientific community, in order to fill knowledge gaps in critical areas, there is an urgent need for interdisciplinary research geared toward developing new data, scientific tools, and fresh perspectives. Third, of relevance for policy-making, wider efforts to promote policy coherence and integrated assessments are required to address potential policy spillovers across sectors, sustainability domains, and geographic and temporal boundaries. The task of conducting comprehensive science-to-policy assessments covering all SDGs, such as for the UN's Global Sustainable Development Report , remains manageable pending the availability of systematic reviews focusing on a limited number of SDG dimensions in each case.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0020.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.017
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations448
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207