The role of sustainability knowledge-action platforms in advancing multi-stakeholder engagement on sustainability
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
Abstract Within the last decade, online sustainability knowledge-action platforms have proliferated. We surveyed 198 sustainability-oriented sites and conducted a review of 41 knowledge-action platforms, which we define as digital tools that advance sustainability through organized activities and knowledge dissemination. We analyzed platform structure and functionality through a systematic coding process based on key issues identified in three bodies of literature: (a) the emergence of digital platforms, (b) the localization of the sustainable development goals (SDGs), and (c) the importance of multi-level governance to sustainability action. While online collaborative tools offer an array of resources, our analysis indicates that they struggle to provide context-sensitivity and higher-level analysis of the trade-offs and synergies between sustainability actions. SDG localization adds another layer of complexity where multi-level governance, actor, and institutional priorities may generate tensions as well as opportunities for intra- and cross-sectoral alignment. On the basis of our analysis, we advocate for the development of integrative open-source and dynamic global online data management tools that would enable the monitoring of progress and facilitate peer-to-peer exchange of ideas and experience among local government, community, and business stakeholders. We argue that by showcasing and exemplifying local actions, an integrative platform that leverages existing content from multiple extant platforms through effective data interoperability can provide additional functionality and significantly empower local actors to accelerate local to global actions, while also complex system change.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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