Interpersonal Elements of Social Sustainability in Intentional Communities
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
management systems, and failure to attract new talent are challenges common to collaborative endeavors. 3 4 5 6 This introduction focuses on exploring the concept of social sustainability and defining intentional community.Our research goal was to investigate interpersonal elements of social sustainability in intentional communities.This was achieved through the lens of a comparative case study in six intentional communities, three located in Israel and three in Thailand. Social SustainabilityThree main components of sustainability have been identified in the literature: environmental, economic, and social. 7 Our research focused on the social pillar of sustainability.Of the three, social sustainability is the least standardized and most vague pillar. 8Definitions of social sustainability are myriad; different communities, organizations, and individuals have developed their own context-specific definitions. 9Ballet et al. 10 attempted to pinpoint the fundamental criterion of the social pillar of sustainability and settled on three elements: social cohesion; level of equity in society; and level of safety experienced by a community.Kunze documented that ecovillage membership practices need to balance individual liberty, communal cooperation, and long-term sustainability. 113 Christian, Creating a Life Together.
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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