Learning systems and learning paths in sustainability transitions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars have stressed the need to better understand the role of learning in sustainability transitions. Even though progress has been made, there is a call for more research, both in the form of large-scale empirical studies and theoretical clarity. Based on pragmatic learning theory, this paper responds to this call by presenting the results of an empirical study on learning within the context of a European large-scale multi-level transition-oriented sustainability project. Following the empirical analysis of the learning in this project, the concept of a learning system is proposed as a theoretical innovation, and the question of how to most effectively facilitate learning in sustainability transitions is rephrased as how such a learning system is best designed. Moreover, the term “learning path” is introduced to describe how individuals or groups maneuver within a learning system. We argue that to understand this maneuvering, the focus needs to be directed at the perceived learning needs of the actors relative to the challenges they are experiencing. Finally, the article discusses how to improve learning in sustainability transition projects and points to the potential value of using the concepts of learning systems and learning paths in doing so.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".