Engaging Youth for Sustainable Development:Field Lessons from Community Sustainability Global
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
Abundant empirical evidence and studies tell us youth (age 15-24) have some potential to facilitate sustainable development (SD) policy and action, including awareness and activism, agenda setting, formulation, legitimation, decision-making and implementation. However, we know more about their activism and implementation role in the global north than south, especially Africa. Also, of the three basic pillars — economic, social, and environmental — of <br/> SD, youth are often reported and visibly seen to be more active on the environmental front, especially SD goal 13: climate action. While they could also foster economic and social sustainability, we know too little about that potential. To contribute to filling these gaps, we ask what youth could do to enhance the three pillars of SD across the global north and south. We use an international project, Community Sustainability Global (CSG), as a case study to answer the question, drawing on workshop preparation and interaction, feedback surveys and interviews. Among other findings, our results show that youth contribute not only to promoting SD policy and action but could also tell us more about knowledge mobilization on scientific and policy loopholes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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