G20 Ülkelerinin Sürdürülebilirlik Performansının Ölçülmesi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although societies were introduced to the concept of sustainability with the Bruntland Report (Our Common Future) published by the Environment and Development Commission in 1987, the concept of sustainability has become one of the primary agendas of the world public opinion as of the 2000s, with the occurrence of climate change and the increase in the negative effects of environmental pollution. . According to the report, sustainable development is “the ability of humanity to meet its present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.” With the Brundtland Report, the foundation of today's corporate sustainability concept called "sustainable development" was laid. Sustainability has three dimensions: social, economic and environmental. Accordingly, environmental, economic and social dimensions, which are seen separately but related to each other, produce a common value for societies, and this value emerges with sustainable development, which is the intersection point. The aim of this study is to evaluate the sustainability performances of selected G20 countries and make comparisons. The importance levels of the criteria were calculated with ENTROPI, one of the objective multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods, and then the sustainability ranking of the countries was obtained with the WASPAS method. The data used to evaluate the sustainability performance of G20 countries was obtained from the website compiled by Susann Kowalski. According to the results obtained, the ranking of the criteria in terms of their importance is public debt, greenhouse gases and organic agriculture. The first three countries with high scores in the G20 countries' ranking according to their sustainability performance were Canada, the USA and Australia, while Turkey ranked 17th.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".