MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199784777 · doi:10.1016/j.wasec.2021.100100

Water-related sustainable development goal accelerators: A rapid review

2021· review· en· W3199784777 on OpenAlexaff
Lina Taing, Nga Dang, Malvika Agarwal, Talia Glickman

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Security · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcknowledgementSustainable developmentSustainabilityGender equalityPsychological interventionProcess managementBusinessWater sectorPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomic growthEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementRisk analysis (engineering)EngineeringEconomicsSociologyWater supplyMedicineEnvironmental engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United Nations has adopted accelerators – policies or programs that target multiple SDGs – to expedite delivery of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This rapid review examines the potential application of accelerators in water interventions from 2015 to 2020, with special consideration of how gender is integrated to fast-track SDG implementation as a cross-cutting case. While 86% of water projects acknowledged SDG interlinkages, project indicators did not reflect SDG acceleration objectives. For example, despite widespread acknowledgement of gender as a critical SDG issue, only a fifth of projects applied gender-related accelerators, and the bulk lacked strategic gender dimensions that addressed systemic roots of inequality. This suggests a strategic opportunity for the water sector to accelerate SDG progress through greater integration of cross-cutting programming.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater SecuritySame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207