MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911315502 · doi:10.1080/20421338.2018.1532629

A methodological framework for sustainable development with vulnerable communities

2019· article· en· W2911315502 on OpenAlexafffund
Lucas Fagundes Veiga Ribeiro, Dena W. McMartin

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Science Technology Innovation and Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Regina
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFaculty of Graduate Studies and Research, University of Regina
KeywordsBusinessLivelihoodWorkflowSustainable developmentEmpowermentVulnerability (computing)Resource (disambiguation)Environmental planningProcess managementEnvironmental resource managementKnowledge managementComputer scienceEconomic growthPolitical scienceComputer securityEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Smart Community Development Framework (SCDF) is a methodological framework that selectively identifies and optimizes sustainable development approaches such as permaculture, sustainable livelihood approaches, community-based social marketing, environmental impact assessments and project management to effectively design and introduce clean social technologies for and with vulnerable communities. The framework was created and evaluated with the goal of ensuring community-empowered decision-making that will result in permanent and sustainable improvements to community design, infrastructure, and technology. The SCDF model is a workflow model that supports communities in establishing their vulnerability level and identifying problems; selecting targeted actions; determining resource availability and major obstacles; optimizing specific appropriate technologies and social programmes to address problems; assessing environment impact and implementation; analyzing empowerment; and developing power transfer guidelines. Local leaders, engineers, project managers and policymakers can use the SCDF model to collaborate in the formulation of effective action plans worldwide.

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)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.029
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.307
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Science Technology Innovation and DevelopmentSame topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207