Mapping CORDIS projects to SDGs

Q&A

For more information check Overview and Rules pages.

We use this place to display questions and answers (Q&A) arrived from different users. We would like to share the same understanding.

Q1: Eligibility: Is participation open to anyone, or is it restricted to a particular group, e.g current or former CORDIS-funded researchers.
A1: Participation is open to anyone. It is not restricted to current or former participants in CORDIS-funded projects.

Q2: Dataset scope: The brief references CORDIS data generally without specifying a particular framework programme. Is there a preferred or expected dataset to use — for example, Horizon Europe (2021–2027) only — or is any CORDIS programme/dataset acceptable, including earlier ones such as H2020 or FP7?
A2: The challenge is not restricted to a particular framework programme. Participants may use CORDIS data from Horizon Europe, Horizon 2020, FP7 or other framework programmes covered by CORDIS. They may focus on one programme or use data from several programmes, depending on their chosen approach.

Q3: Submission: Could you clarify how and where the final submission should be delivered (e.g. an upload portal, email, a GitHub repository), and whether there are any strict format or file-size limits?
A3: The final submission should be uploaded via the competition platform by 30 September 2026, 23:59 CEST (UTC+2). It should include the items listed under ‘Submission format’ in the Rules. Format limited only for the mapping table: CSV or Excel. No size limit.

Q4: AI/LLM tools: The brief notes that participants should document any external datasets, tools or models used. Could you confirm whether the use of commercial LLM APIs (for example, to help generate explanations for SDG assignments) is acceptable, or whether fully open/local models are expected given the emphasis on reproducibility?
A4: The current text allows participants to choose their own approach and explicitly refers to the use of AI, machine learning and other automated methods, provided that the method is transparent, explainable and reproducible. It also requires participants to document any external datasets, tools or models used. It does not explicitly state whether commercial LLM APIs are acceptable – but it would make the reproducibility difficult or even impossible.

Q5: Taxonomy depth. The EU Vocabularies SDG taxonomy (http://data.europa.eu/sdg) includes 17 goals, 169 targets, and several hundred indicator/series concepts. When the brief asks for “the most precise relevant concept” and “narrower SDG concept(s)”, should mappings stop at target level, or are indicator-level concepts also expected?
A5: Participants should use the most precise relevant concept available in the EU Vocabularies SDG taxonomy. The mapping does not have to stop at target level. Indicator-level or other narrower concepts may also be used where they are relevant and can be meaningfully supported by the CORDIS project information. However, participants are not expected to assign a narrower concept simply because one exists: the level of precision should be justified by the available evidence.

Q6: Corpus cut-off. CORDIS dumps are updated monthly. Is there a preferred snapshot (for example a stated dump date) so that mappings remain comparable across participants?
A6: There is no mandatory CORDIS snapshot or cut-off date for the challenge. As CORDIS data are updated regularly, participants should clearly document the dataset(s) used, including the date of retrieval or snapshot where applicable, so that their results can be understood and reproduced. Participants are not expected to use exactly the same snapshot.

Q7: Licence for reuse. The evaluation criteria mention reusability by CORDIS or the European Data Portal. Is a specific open licence preferred for the mapping table, notebook and prototype (for example CC-BY or EUPL)?
A7: No specific open licence is required for submissions. However, as reusability is one of the evaluation criteria, participants are encouraged to use an appropriate open licence and to state clearly the licence applying to their submitted code, data and documentation. Any third-party data, tools, libraries or other resources used must, of course, be used in accordance with their applicable licences and conditions.

Q8: Prototype hosting. The Rules require a working web-based prototype. Should it be publicly hosted at submission time (URL), or is it sufficient to provide code that the evaluators can run locally?
A8: The working web-based prototype should be accessible to the evaluators at submission time, preferably through a URL included in the submission. Providing source code alone that requires the evaluators to install dependencies and run the prototype locally would not fulfil the purpose of the requested working web-based prototype. Supporting source code and instructions may additionally be included to facilitate reproducibility.

Q9: Can teams participate in the competition, or are submissions limited to individuals?
A9: Teams are welcome to participate in the competition. However, due to the format of the certificates, only one name can appear on a certificate. Teams should therefore indicate whether, in the event of ranking among the top three submissions, they would like the certificate to be issued in the name of one team member or under their shared team name.

Q10: Terms, intellectual property and publication. Beyond the evaluation criteria published on the challenge page, is there a full terms & conditions document for the competition? Specifically: who holds the rights to submitted materials, under what licence may CORDIS or the European Data Portal reuse the method and mapping, and will submissions (or winning submissions) be published publicly after the challenge?
A10: Participants retain full ownership of their submissions and all associated rights. The winning submissions themself will not be published. Only the individual participants or teams behind the winning applications will be featured on the European Data Portal in order to promote the winners.

Q11: Use of large language models. The challenge page notes that commercial LLM APIs may make reproducibility difficult. Could you clarify whether: (a) a method built on a commercial LLM API is acceptable if fully documented (model, version, prompts, parameters), and (b) whether a method using an open-weight model (publicly downloadable weights, version-pinned, reproducible on any infrastructure) accessed through a hosted inference provider satisfies your reproducibility expectations?
A11: All LLMs, whether open or closed, may be used for the challenge. The key requirement is not the type of LLM used, but that the methodology is sufficiently transparent and reproducible.
For a commercial LLM API, participants should document the model, version, prompts and parameters used. However, it should be noted that full reproducibility may have inherent limitations, as the provider may update or modify the model or service, and the same model/version may no longer be available later. Even with identical prompts and parameters, the results may therefore not always be reliably reproducible.
An open-weight model accessed through a hosted inference provider is equally acceptable. Participants should specify the exact model and version used and document the methodology and relevant settings in sufficient detail to allow the approach to be reproduced.