MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395467489 · doi:10.1186/s42055-024-00079-6

Learning in action: embedding the SDGs through the Reach Alliance

2024· article· en· W4395467489 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Roll, Sena Agbodjah, Iza M. Sánchez Siller

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Earth Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceAction (physics)EmbeddingComputer sciencePolitical scienceArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There has been increasing practical and scholarly interest in the engagement of universities with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, there has been limited examination of international university collaborations focusing on the SDGs and how they become embedded within universities. Addressing this need, this article explores the experiences of three members of the Reach Alliance a consortium of eight higher education institutions from around the globe. Reach supports students and faculty mentors to study how critical interventions can be made accessible to those who are the hardest to reach. This work aligns with SDG 4 (Quality Education), as well as SDG 17 (Partnership for the Goals) and the Goal’s second universal value of leave no one behind. This commitment to connecting education and societal engagement resonates with Goddard et al.’s work on the civic university as both “globally competitive and locally engaged” (2012: 43). This article focuses on University College London (UK), Ashesi University (Ghana), and Tecnológico de Monterrey (Mexico), selected for their diverse structures and geographies. For each case, we examine how the Reach Alliance initiative has been institutionally embedded, as well as the role of local and global partnerships in making the case for supporting Reach. We find that Reach’s organisation as an international network has encouraged its adoption by host institutions. The initiative’s emphasis on both local concerns as well as the global goal and networks has also resonated with host institutions. This article will be of interest to those working in sustainability and higher education when considering strategies for introducing or increasing SDG-focussed research and teaching.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.033
Scholarly communication0.0150.016
Open science0.0020.033
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Earth ReviewsSame topicInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207