Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven approach to climate action and sustainable development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Countries have pledged commitment to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement to combat climate change. To maximize synergies between SDGs and climate actions (CAs), we evaluate the alignment of national commitment to SDGs and emissions reduction targets by comparing action plans embodied in Voluntary National Review (VNR) reports and the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) across 67 countries. An Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based approach is proposed in this study to explore the interconnectedness by applying machine learning classifier and natural language processing. Middle- and low-income countries with high emissions tend to have low NDC targets and contain similar information in VNR reports. High-income countries show less alignment between their NDCs and VNRs. The economic status of countries is found to be connected to their climate actions and SDGs alignment. Here, we demonstrate utility and promise in using AI techniques to unravel interactions between CA and SDG. This study demonstrates how Artificial Intelligence can be used to unravel the linkages between Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement 3 and the agenda for 2030 Sustainable Development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".