The sustainable development goals: Past, present and future
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we are now past the half way mark of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 2015-2030, it is a prudent time to take stock and look forward, and I do so here from my perspective as founding Editor in Chief of the <i>European Journal of Sustainable Development Research</i>. The SDGs clearly have fostered a much research and numerous initiatives and implementations related to sustainable development, spanning all sectors of societies and their economies. Progress made towards sustainable development has reinforced that there are multiple approaches to sustainable development, varying from region to region and country to country. Despite these advances and successes, progress to date on the SDGs has been far from adequate if humanity and society are to shift towards sustainable development in a significant and meaningful way in the future. This relatively weak progress has stemmed from various factors, some unpredictable and others somewhat foreseeable. It is becoming increasingly evident that the progress on the SDGs by 2030 will not complete the quest for sustainable development. I consequently believe and contend that there clearly is a need to extend and double down on the SDGs for 2030-2045 and beyond.
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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it