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
ABSTRACT This paper advances the literature on sustainability by examining the mathematical underpinnings of the Degrowth paradigm and its relationship to other prominent frameworks. Building on a deconstructive methodology, we analyze policy intersections depicted in a Venn diagram form using set theory and hypergraph analysis. Our findings reveal multiple internal contradictions among Green Growth, the Green New Deal, and Degrowth, particularly regarding the reconciliation of productivity‐driven objectives with resource reduction and social equity. Rather than treating these paradigms as mutually exclusive, we show that a new Integrative Green Convergence approach emerges when seemingly contradictory policy elements are treated as nonempty intersections. In doing so, we link these conceptual integrations to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), assessing their potential to reconcile environmental limits with social well‐being. The study highlights the value of mathematical and deconstructive methods in revealing hidden synergies within sustainability models, paving the way for future research and policy 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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