Mobilizing transdisciplinary sustainability science in place-based communities: Evaluating saliency, legitimacy, and credibility in northern Canada
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
The field of transdisciplinary sustainability science offers limited guidance on what it means to mobilize knowledge outside of conventional policy and decision-making settings. Research within this field tends to emphasize knowledge mobilization for conventional environmental policy venues and decision-makers such as state and industry actors. Place-based communities often make critical management decisions to advance sustainability and inform policy, yet the evaluation of sustainability science in these contexts is underexamined. Using a case study, community-based research approach, we explored how social processes in place-based communities shaped interpretations of sustainability science by those involved in and/or affected by research. We used core criteria for knowledge mobilization—salience, legitimacy, and credibility, as established by Cash et al. (2003) — to guide our analysis of how research knowledge was evaluated. Our analysis highlighted that specific relationships, perspectives and worldviews, and historical contexts shaped how salience, legitimacy and credibility were interpreted. We affirm that for knowledge to be effectively mobilized, it must be salient, legitimate and credible, but find that the definitions of these terms are highly dependant on the social contexts in which the research takes place. These insights are critical to future transdisciplinary research aimed at addressing complex sustainability problems impacting place-based communities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it