Impact of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals on the Comprehensive Progress of the United States, México, and 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
In this article, we describe the impact of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals on the integral progress of the United States, México, and Canada, which brings multiple benefits to all institutions, communities, and individuals in the mentioned countries, which since 1989 had signed a free trade agreement (NAFTA), now replaced by a new commercial treaty (USMCA) entered in operations in 2020. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs established 17 Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, whose scopes are projected to be fulfilled before 2030. Among the 17 compared objectives, only two, the Goal-1 (End poverty in all its forms everywhere), and Goal-4 (Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all) showed significant differences (p-value=0.012, and 0.001 respectively) via an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the average achievement % distribution per Goal between countries. We hope that this essay can contribute in some way to the awakening of consciences for sustainable development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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