Sustainable development and subnational governments: Policy-making and multi-level interactions
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
Almost 25 years have passed since the Brundtland Report drew world-wide attention to the concept of sustainable development. While global summits such as the ones in Rio and Johannesburg gave important impulses in the search for sustainable development policies, concrete efforts for the implementation of the concept have been made at different levels of governance. At the eve of a new ‘Rio +20’ summit, the debate on the implementation of Agenda 21 and the policy principles of the Rio Declaration is still ongoing. This paper emphasizes the importance of the subnational level of governance and discusses how subnational governments have taken up the challenge to institutionalize sustainable development and design sustainable development policies. It presents the findings of a transatlantic research effort that focused on two research questions. First, how have subnational governments taken up the challenge to institutionalize sustainable development and design sustainable development policies? Second, how do subnational governments try to be involved in international decision-making for sustainable development and how do they interact with other levels of governance? The paper brings together empirical material of experiences of subnational governments from Belgium, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, the UK and the US, gathered through interviews, non-participatory observations and document analyses.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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