Quantitative assessment of The Group of Seven’s collaboration in sustainable development goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strengthening international collaboration is essential to achieving the United Nations’ SDGs. The Group of Seven (G7) is recognized for acting and enhancing cooperation to achieve the SDGs. However, the current understanding of G7’s cooperation is rather subjective without quantitative measurements. Here we show a comprehensive and quantitative analysis of G7’s cooperation with regards to the economic and environmental SDGs over the period of 2000-2020. The results suggest that G7 countries have all contributed positively to economic indicators thanks to their closely binding relationship. By contrast, significant discrepancies and uncooperative performances in environmental indicators have been revealed. Particularly, Canada and Germany have shown considerable negative synergy contributions to environmental indicators, which might offset the positive contributions brought by France and Italy and lead to an overall negative synergy. Our results highlight the need for further collaboration among G7 to tackle emerging environmental issues, such as climate change and shrinking biodiversity. Wang and colleagues assess the G7’s collaboration in achieving the SDGs from 2000–2020. They find that all G7 members contribute positively economics-related SDGs, but performance on environmental goals shows less collaboration and discrepancies in contributions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".