MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990277165 · doi:10.1177/0270467605274856

A Failing Grade for Our Efforts to Make Our Civilization More Environmentally Sustainable

2005· article· en· W1990277165 on OpenAlexaff
Nina Nakajima, Willem H. Vanderburg

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)BusinessEnvironmental economicsSustainable ValueProduction (economics)Value chainValue (mathematics)Benchmark (surveying)Environmentally friendlyRisk analysis (engineering)BiosphereProduct lifecycleSustainabilityEngineering managementMarketingEngineeringComputer scienceNew product developmentEconomicsSupply chain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the decades to come, the authors expect growing pressures to reform current production systems to make them more compatible with the biosphere. A proactive approach to this pressure involves consideration of an alternate value chain based on a comprehensive engineering and marketing approach to recover value from end-of-life products. To estimate the potential advantages of the new value chain, the authors calculate the minimum throughput advantages and environmental advantages that can be realized from a comprehensive strategy of recovering value from end-of-life products. The efforts of corporations and other organizations to make modern ways of life more environmentally sustainable are evaluated against this benchmark in terms of activities in the area of selling services, product take back, life cycle assessment, Responsible Care, voluntary emission reduction initiatives, and engineering and management education. It is concluded that in general, these efforts make only a minor contribution toward achieving.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0150.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Science Technology & SocietySame topicEnvironmental, Ecological, and Cultural StudiesFrench-language works237,207