Implementing the Sustainable Development Goals in University Higher Education: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of higher education institutions in promoting sustainability is realised through scientific research and academic activities. It is therefore essential to explore strategies to assess and monitor the implementation of sustainable practices in these institutions. This study set out to examine the mainstreaming of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in higher education institutions. The methodology used was a systematic review of research articles in the Scopus database, conducted between 6 and 20 January 2023. The inclusion criteria covered global university experiences in implementing the SDGs. The review revealed that 28.56% of the publications included were from European universities, 24% from the Americas, 13% from Asia and a smaller number from Oceania (5%) and Africa (2%). The analysis identified indicators to assess adherence to the SDGs, such as number of publications, institutional affiliation, number of reports, disciplinary field, type of course, number of essays, subject area, student/classroom ratio and age of participants. The data collection instruments used were questionnaires, interviews, published articles and field notes. This systematic review details the concern of higher education institutions to measure the impact of their activities in relation to the SDG guidelines, as well as a critical and decision-oriented summary for institutions wishing to initiate the proces
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".