MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404068265 · doi:10.3390/su16219594

Ten Simple Rules for Incorporating the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into Environmental and Natural Science Courses

2024· article· en· W4404068265 on OpenAlexaff
Nargol Ghazian, Christopher J. Lortie

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentSimple (philosophy)Natural (archaeology)Environmental planningNatural scienceEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental economicsPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) established 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to combat poverty, inequality, and climate change. Recently, integrating these goals into higher education curricula has emerged as essential for fostering positive environmental and civic engagement. Challenges persist, particularly the prioritization of social and economic concerns over eco-centered principles and ecopedagogy. Education must emphasize the politics of environmental issues, advocating sustainable practices that benefit both humans and nonhuman species. This article proposes ten simple rules for incorporating the SDGs into undergraduate courses in ecology, evolution, and environmental science. We conducted a literature review, analyzing 940 publications from 2014 to 2024 using ISI Web of Science and Google Scholar. We focused on fields like Green Sustainable Science and Technology and Environmental Education to identify the best practices for integrating SDGs. Our findings link pedagogical successes to the SDGs, facilitating effective educational strategies. For practical sustainability education, students must grasp the interplay between the environment and societal elements such as diversity, justice, and resilience. Connecting course topics to the SDGs offers a powerful framework for teaching undergraduates about complex environmental challenges. Our research highlights a novel approach to embedding SDGs in environmental education, promoting critical thinking and literacy across various settings.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainability→Same topicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability→French-language works237,207→