MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186594820 · doi:10.3390/su13158136

From Sustainable Development Goals to Sustainable Cities: A Social Media Analysis for Policy-Making Decision

2021· article· en· W3186594820 on OpenAlexaff
Amal Marzouki, Arbi Chouikh, Sehl Mellouli, Rim Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachSustainable developmentSocial mediaContext (archaeology)Public relationsPolitical scienceProcess (computing)Sustainable communityContent analysisDescriptive statisticsBusinessKnowledge managementSociologyComputer scienceGeographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Nations (UN) adopted the seventeen “Sustainable Development Goals” (SDGs) in early September 2015. One of these goals is SDG 11, which refers to the sustainable cities and communities. In this context, local governments face the challenge of aligning with this objective. As a result, they are increasing outreach to their organizational boundaries to involve citizens in policy making and strategy development, continually listening to citizens’ voices. One of the methods citizens use to express themselves is social media. This paper will emphasize social media platforms and specially Twitter to explore the public discourse about cities in the context of SDG 11. We applied descriptive quantitative and qualitative analysis to analyze the tweets that include terms and hashtags referring to the SDG 11. The data analysis process is composed of three major procedures: 1-Engagement analysis, 2-Trends based analysis and 3-Data Insights. Our results show that: 1-the COVID’19 pandemic negatively impacted users engagement towards SDG 11, 2-new technologies such AI and IoT are gaining more importance to help cities reach SDG 11, and 3-the SDGs are related and one SDG can impact other SDGs.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0130.016
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicSmart Cities and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207