Regionalizing the sustainable development goals: interpretations of priorities and key actors for creating sustainable island futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 17 United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGs) are an important step in defining what sustainable development looks like in practice. However, to make concrete progress toward the SDGs, it is essential to understand how they are perceived and can be acted upon locally or regionally. In this study, we draw on survey and focus group research carried out in Newfoundland and Labrador, on the east coast of Canada, to analyze how the SDGs are interpreted in a regional context. Our research questions are as follows: Which SDGs have the highest salience for participants and may be leveraged for sustainability policy and practice? Which political actors are seen as having the capacity to implement the goals into policy and practice? Sustainable development goals aligned with economic sustainability are emphasized and seen as particularly important. However, economically oriented SDGs are viewed as compatible with a broad range of SDGs. Overall, respondents view the provincial government as the most salient actor with the capacity to implement sustainability policy and practice for the region. However, despite its perceived importance, participants assess provincial government performance very poorly regarding SDG implementation. In terms of the governance dimension of sustainability, our results highlight the importance of attending to the roles of mid-level political actors, as well as their relationships with national and local/municipal governments, in pursuing regional sustainability.
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 | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".