The campus environmental management system cycle in practice
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
Purpose To challenge the deliberate strategy approach of the environmental management system (EMS) cycle, and offer a model based on both the practical reality experienced at Dalhousie University and emergent strategy theory. Also, to share some of the lessons learned in the 15 years of environmental management at Dalhousie University. Design/methodology/approach A case study of environmental management at Dalhousie University between 1990 and 2005 was conducted. Data were collected through 13 interviews with senior management and through 22 interviews with faculty, students and staff. Findings Two EMS cycles emerged with an overlap in the policy, planning and implementation phases, as well as unpredicted “maintaining implementation” and “renewing” phases. Emergent plans and best practices from other universities fed into the EMS cycle at the implementation and review stages, respectively. Practical implications An improved EMS model is presented. It includes feedback loops, emergent plans, unrealized plans, the renew concept, and best practices. Six practical lessons extracted from the case study are: “early movers”; champions; administrative versus academic versus joint environmental policies; opportunism; and, the change cycle. The sustaining and renewing phases that Dalhousie University experienced are important for practitioners to be aware of. The case itself also presents an overview of numerous initiatives. Originality/value Integrates strategic management and campus EMS theory to create a new model, while also outlining 15 years of environmental management and change cycles experienced at Dalhousie University.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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