MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6961046096 · doi:10.14288/1.0421585

Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from UBC Intercampus Air Travel

2022· article· en· W6961046096 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésAir quality indexGreenhouse gasAir travelClimate changeCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Air pollutionOrder (exchange)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Air travel contributes to an estimated 3.5-5.0% of anthropogenic climate change. The University of British Columbia (UBC) has proposed achieving net zero emissions by 2035 at their Vancouver campus (UBCV) and 2050 at their Okanagan campus (UBCO), according to their draft Climate Action Plans 2030 (CAP 2030). UBC’s air travel in 2019 was responsible for 18-21% of the university’s total emissions, of which the UBCV to UBCO intercampus air travel comprised an estimated 17%. As UBC transitions out of fully remote and virtual activities during the Covid-19 pandemic (Covid) it is important to capitalize on the lessons learned and define a ‘new normal’ with reduced air travel emissions as well as increased access to equitable and effective alternatives. This directed study therefore aims to uncover the behaviours and motivations of UBC staff and faculty who travel the intercampus corridor by air for university-related activities, in order to gain valuable knowledge about ways in which air travel emissions can be reduced, ideally while maintaining or improving the quality of UBC’s academic and operational objectives. Methods included an online survey and follow-up interviews with any UBCO/UBCV, administrator/non-administrator, staff and faculty members who have ever flown between the two campuses. The survey gathered information on the frequency of seven intercampus activity types: work-related meetings, professional development, public-facing events, visits/tours, research, teaching/learning and conferences; and which format was used: in-person (considered linked to air travel), virtual, or hybrid (a mix of in-person and virtual). To compare the effects of Covid on intercampus activity type and format, we collected this information for three one-year time periods: pre-Covid, during Covid, and a hypothetical post-Covid future. Overall, survey respondents’ behaviour changed from mostly attending in-person, but using some virtual and hybrid formats, for all intercampus activities in the year before Covid, to conducting almost all of these activities virtually during the pandemic. Relative to pre-Covid times, respondents would like to return, post-Covid, to a lower use of the in-person format for intercampus activities (from 48.7 to 40.3 % frequency), and a higher use of the virtual format (20.2 to 30.1%), although in-person would still have a higher use overall than virtual. Respondents preferred not to change usage of the hybrid format (8.3 to 8.2%), which was already relatively low compared to the other formats. Interview results also captured the motivations of UBC staff and faculty behind choosing different formats for intercampus activities, with the main themes that emerged, apart from climate concerns, being equity, social cues, productivity, accessibility, convenience/cost, networking, technology challenges and side-benefits. An important consideration is the inequity experienced by UBCO staff and faculty, who are more frequently on the virtual side of the hybrid format. Survey and interview responses concerning barriers and solutions to reducing air travel led to a set of recommendations, listed in order of priority, from soft tactics encouraging behaviour change to hard ones that are more restrictive. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,898
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,202

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,180
Écart entre enseignants0,164 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesTravaux en français237 207