The New Horizons of Law and Science through the Lens of 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda: Some Emerging Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The complex sustainability challenges of the 21st century need to be addressed through integrated interdisciplinary approaches, combining science, law, and ethics with concrete, timely, and effective solutions. This study offers a legal framework and a case study to the needs posited by the Agenda 2030 on sustainable development. Starting from an analysis of the first part of the Agenda, the article unfolds by exploring the possibility of defining environmental compliance through environmental responsibility, environmental duties, and the virtuous case of agroecology. The case study focuses on a climate-smart practice applied to the sea and delves into the environmental, nutritional, and health benefits of the marine biomass from Northern Norway. The theoretical framework and the case study will emphasize the importance of systemic approaches to sustainability for putting integral ecology models into action.
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 | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".