RETRACTED: Sustainability: A Concept in Flux? The Role of Multidisciplinary Insights in Shaping Sustainable Futures
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the multifaceted concept of sustainability through a multidisciplinary lens, integrating perspectives from natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, economics, engineering, technology, psychology, and health. Drawing on a systematic review of the literature and empirical data from the Sustainable African futures Sustainability School, this research integrates disciplinary insights and aligns them with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The findings reveal significant variations in how different disciplines define, prioritise, and approach sustainability, highlighting the need for transdisciplinary approaches to develop holistic and actionable solutions. This study identifies limitations in multidisciplinary methods, such as potential biases and siloed discussions, and advocates for research that fosters dynamic exchanges across various disciplines. Practical recommendations are provided for corporate sustainability initiatives and governmental policies that align with the SDGs, offering pathways to address the interconnected global challenges of sustainable development. By advancing collaborative transdisciplinary approaches, this study contributes to the shaping of sustainable futures through integrated and inclusive strategies.
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 | 0.041 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.047 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".