Sustainable development goal interactions: An analysis based on the five pillars of the 2030 agenda
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
Abstract The 2030 Agenda calls for a change in thinking in order to implement sustainable development goals (SDGs) and targets as a system. To achieve this goal, the 2030 Agenda established five pillars (“5 Ps”): people, planet, prosperity, peace and partnership. Here, we present a classification of these SDGs and their targets based on the five pillars. Our aim is to improve our understanding of interactions by assessing whether potential synergies and trade‐offs are related to the classification of the targets. We surveyed 30 people and asked them to associate the content of target labels with the pillars. We classified SDG and targets according to an original quantification system. We determined whether the interactions were linked to similar or different classifications of the targets. We observed that the more similar the targets were in terms of classification, the more positive the interactions. We also noted that synergies exist between targets of different classifications. Our findings are useful for applying a systemic approach for policy coherence in sustainability 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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