Sustainability as Wild Policy: Mobile SDG Interventions and Land-informed Policy in Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper engages narratives from Tess Lea’s (2020) book ‘Wild Policy’ for how they help consider the messy or ‘wild’ nature of global policy interventions on sustainability, including in its latest formation as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We do so alongside data from research on education in the territory of Nunavut, as well as informed by our experiences as settler and Cree university researchers concerned with place and land-informed education policy. Engaging with a methodological framing of policy ecology, the article considers both policy artifacts and ‘ambiences’ or materialities, and their interrelations. We examine how a Saskatchewan university’s draft SDG plan manifests aspects of pre-fabricated globally mobile ‘wild policy’, including in its gaps in land-informed Indigenous engagement. Instead, we suggest how more systemic and decolonizing approaches to land-informed education policy, as in development in Inuit-based higher education in Nunavut, can inform both future policy decision-making and policy research.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".