How can World Design Capital (WDC) programme better incorporate United Nation's Sustainable Development Goal 11 (SDG 11) in future strategies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research study investigates the ways World Design Organization's (WDO) World Design Capital (WDC) programme can improve in incorporating United Nations ' Sustainable Development Goal 11 (SDG 11): Sustainable Cities and Communities as part of its design agenda which can help in the sustainable development of cities. The steady rise of the global population leads to global cities facing significant development challenges in the areas of environment, economic and social sectors. Therefore, these global cities instigate various design strategies including implementing the concept of sustainable development as a design strategy to counter and restrain such challenges. WDC programme is a strategical design programme that also assists WDC designated cities with the development of environment, economic and social sectors by advocating critical design strategies and ideas. As the WDC programme aims to improve its design agenda and provide new innovative insights to the future WDC designated cities and as well ideas to global cities, it significantly looks at SDG 11 as an opportunistic way-forward step that can cater towards various forms of cities' development. The research investigated this through a series of discussions with WDO members that prompted their key suggestions in relation to SDG 11 related design strategies and ideas to help the development of cities and as well the development of the WDC programme.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".