Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Agenda 2030) encompasses social, economic, and environmental commitments within a single global framework. However, experts have been warning that the ambitious nature of Agenda 2030’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s) might be lost in indicator-driven implementation. This article examines the assumption that SDG indicators result in policy shrinking (offering a less ambitious framing) by exploring how the framing of Agenda 2030’s gender commitments shifts from SDG s to their indicators. Employing critical frame analysis, this article shows that SDG global indicators result in policy shrinking of gender-specific targets in terms of their 1) human rights framing 2) overall scope, and 3) inclusivity of target groups. This policy shrinking does not necessarily undermine Agenda 2030, but it does call for greater attention, especially by actors promoting gender equality, to national interpretations of specific SDG targets and the inclusivity of otherwise marginalized policy target groups.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".