Los nuevos desafíos del desarrollo sustentable hacia 2030
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los nuevos desafíos delA partir de la promulgación de la Agenda 21 en 1992, en la cual se exhorta a todos los países del orbe a realizar estrategias nacionales para alcanzar el axioma del desarrollo sustentable, se han establecido compromisos e implementado políticas como acciones consensadas. 1 Sin embargo, se debe reconocer que el Programa de Acción 21 no determinó una estrategia puntual para lograr acceder al desarrollo sustentable, constituyéndolo así como un constructo no terminado y en constante edificación.Por lo tanto, se ha instituido en un gran reto orientar y conducir una agenda al respecto.Barbosa 2 menciona que hay cinco líneas conductoras para lograr erigir el desarrollo sustentable, que parten de la Carta de Ottawa en 1986 y que permean y dan dirección a la Agenda 21 y a los acuerdos subsecuentes, como la integración de la conservación al desarrollo, la satisfacción de las necesidades humanas, lograr la equidad y la justicia social en la sociedad, empoderar en la sociedad la autodetermina-
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".