University presidents' conceptualizations of sustainability in higher education
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 The purpose of this paper is to examine how a cohort of university presidents and vice‐presidents in Canadian universities conceptualize sustainable development, sustainable universities, the role universities play in achieving a sustainable future, key issues facing the university, and the barriers to implementing sustainability initiatives on campus. Design/methodology/approach The research comprises in‐depth interviews with university presidents (rectors) and vice‐presidents from Talloires Declaration signatory universities in Canada. Interviews include both closed and open‐ended questions and two checklists focused on sustainable development and sustainable universities. Interview transcripts are analyzed through the identification of respondent themes. Findings The majority of participants are well versed in the concept of sustainable development, but less familiar with the concept of a sustainable university. The majority are dedicated to having their university become more sustainable. The most significant constraints to moving toward sustainability reported are financial predicaments, lack of understanding and awareness of sustainability issues amongst the university population, and a resistance to change. Originality/value While higher education scholars have a reasonably common conceptualization of sustainable development and what constitutes a “sustainable university”, there are few studies to date that investigate the level of sustainability knowledge of the major stakeholders within the university, or that examine what stakeholders feel is the role of the university in creating a sustainable future. If the university is tasked with responsibilities for creating a sustainable future, it is essential that all university stakeholders have a common understanding of the term sustainable development. This paper attempts to make a contribution to this significant gap in the literature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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