Review on Quintuple Helix Innovation Model and Introducing Co-Eco- Approach in Support of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation within the Framework of the New European Bauhaus Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review delves into the pressing need and evolving perspectives on stakeholder engagement to achieve sustainable, resilient, and inclusive ecosystem services, particularly in the context of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Understanding and collaboration among key sectors are crucial to reach these objectives. The failure of many initiatives to meet their targets often results from the absence of a unified strategy for involving all stakeholders. Moreover, this review underscores the importance of co-governance and co-creation as integral aspects of effective stakeholder engagement, fostering a sense of ownership among stakeholders. By examining the current landscape and diverse strategies, this study emphasizes the significance of adopting the quintuple helix innovation framework as a holistic approach for sustainable and inclusive stakeholder engagement in advancing EU climate objectives. Finally, the study introduces the co-eco-approach as a potential step forward for achieving the targets of the European Green Deal and New Bauhaus initiatives.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".