Robotics: Enabler and inhibitor of the Sustainable Development Goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Robotics has the power to help our society in managing many current and foreseeable challenges, and contribute to a responsible future, as formally structured in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) initiative. Prior work has already investigated the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on the SDGs, using a systematic consensus-based expert elicitation process. However, the existing literature has not focused on the intricacies of robotics and the unique dynamics this domain has regarding the SDGs. In this vein, this work adapts an established approach, to focus on and dive deeper, into the field of robotics and social responsibility. We present a multidisciplinary analysis of both the enabling and disabling roles of robotics, in achieving the SDG-presented, major economic, social and environmental priorities. The United Nation's 17 SDG and the 169 Targets, were individually examined within the context of state-of-the-art robotics already documented in scientific literature. The significance and the quality-of-evidence of enabling/inhibiting impacts, were assessed by an international panel of experts, to quantify the positive or negative effect of the applied robotic systems. Results from this study indicate that robotics has the potential to enable 46 % of the Targets, particularly for the industry and environment-related SDGs, forecasting a huge impact on our production systems and thus on our entire society. Inversely, robotics could inhibit 19 % of the SDG Targets, mainly through exacerbation of inequalities and tensions in the SDGs. The objective of this paper is to assess and grade the current impact of the robotics megatrend on the SDGs, provide comparable data, and encourage the robotics community, to work on these targets, in a unified way and eventually improve the quality of the related outcomes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".