MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2840630452 · doi:10.1002/sd.1852

Toward sustainable development: A methodology for evaluating environmental planning systems

2018· article· en· W2840630452 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaIrish Research Council for the Humanities and Social SciencesEuropean Commission
KeywordsSustainable developmentStrengths and weaknessesEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental management systemBusinessEnvironmental impact assessmentProcess managementPolitical scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract At the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, the world's national governments committed to preparing strategies to achieve sustainable development. This paper describes an evaluation framework for measuring the success of these efforts to achieve environmental goals in sustainable development. The framework evaluates two dimensions of sustainable development planning: the environmental planning system, and environmental outcomes. An application of the methodology to evaluate environmental performance in Germany illustrates that the proposed method is relatively easy to apply, transparent, and identifies the strengths and weaknesses of a country's environmental performance.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.271 · 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