Where Do We Want To Be? Making Sustainability Indicators Integrated, Dynamic and Participatory
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter provides some initial commentary on the development of a sustainability indicator and modeling system in the Georgia Basin, Canada, which has been designed to incorporate a high degree of integration, dynamism and participation. In particular, it is desirable that the development of indicator sets and sustainability indicator systems be made more integrated and dynamic. Governments have typically established sustainability indicator systems in order to support policymaking. Participatory research, including interacting with user groups throughout the research process, helps entrench the relevance and impacts of sustainability indicators. The participatory modelling approach used to design the integrated QUEST models and the creation of a workshop process to envelop QUEST use, facilitate scenario creation and discussions about specific indicators. Context is essential for building the mental models of sustainability that the users develop and adapt in the context of interacting with applications such as QUEST.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it