MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4298109526 · doi:10.51952/9781447306474.ch008

Regional centres of expertise as mobilising mechanisms for education for sustainable development

2014· book-chapter· en· W4298109526 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Roger A. Petry, Lyle M. Benko, Takaaki Koganezawa, Tomonori Ichinose, Mary Otieno, Ros Wade

Bibliographic record

VenuePolicy Press eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation Models
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentRegional scienceEconomic growthEnvironmental planningBusinessPolitical scienceGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chapter Eight presents three case studies of regional centres for expertise (RCEs) in ESD. RCEs were set up to achieve the aspirations of the UN Decade for Sustainable Development (DESD), 2005–14, and to help create a global learning space for sustainable development. An RCE is a network of formal, informal and non-formal organisations mobilised to act as a catalyst for the delivery of ESD. Although sharing common aims, RCEs have a considerable degree of autonomy and are able to determine their own particular priorities based on local circumstances.The three case studies are: RCE Saskatchewan, Canada; RCE Greater Sendai, Japan; and RCE Greater Nairobi, Kenya. These RCEs have all grown up organically and have been developed by a variety of social actors and stakeholders in their respective regions. They all have different focuses and have responded in different ways to the challenges of sustainability. This is a good example of subsidiarity in terms of ESD policymaking and practice. The case studies are framed within the context of civil society organisations and social movements, with an analysis of the impact and effectiveness of RCEs as agents for change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolicy Press eBooksSame topicUniversity-Industry-Government Innovation ModelsFrench-language works237,207