Comparative Analysis of Alignments between SDG16 and the Other Sustainable Development Goals
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
SDG16 cuts through, affects and is affected by the other 16 SDGs. This study involved a number of steps; the first step was computing the degrees of compatibility/alignments of SDG16 targets as individual targets against the targets of the other 16 SDGs using a scoring system that ranged from -3 to +3. The next step in data treatment involved computing the means for each row in each table to get the compatibility scores between SDG16 targets and each goal and then we used the columns to compare the SDG16 with the targets of each of the other goals. The final steps involved computing the mean compatibility scores between the SDG16 goal and the goals of the other SDGs on one hand and those between the SDG16 targets and the other 16 SDGs on the other. The approach is based on the strategic management principle that objectives and targets are set in ways that their achievement help in the achievement of the aspirations of the goal. The study approach is new, and it has not been done before. The compatibility examination showed that the aspirations embedded in the development of SDG2 (Zero Hunger) targets and those of SDG16 were least aligned and do not effectively support each other. SDG16 and SDG5 (Gender equality) were the most aligned, suggesting that the achievement of the SDG16 targets go a long way in supporting the achievement of SDG5 targets. An approach like this can be used as stand alone or in conjunction with the often used qualitative methods and will be a very helpful tool during SDG or related reviews, as it is useful in identifying targets and goals with high mutual transfer benefits among themselves. The study concludes with some recommendations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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