MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040277936 · doi:10.1108/14676370610702235

Campus sustainability audit research in Atlantic Canada: pioneering the campus sustainability assessment framework

2006· article· en· W2040277936 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSustainability in Higher Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityAuditCurriculumSustainability scienceSustainability organizationsPolitical sciencePublic relationsSociologyBusinessPedagogyAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To introduce the campus sustainability assessment framework (CSAF) as a campus sustainability audit methodology; to share student campus sustainability audit research; to reflect on using the CSAF for pedagogy; to review the usefulness of the CSAF as an action research instrument; to encourage other faculty/sustainability educators to incorporate the CSAF into their curriculum; to present the Sierra Youth Coalition, Canada Sustainable Campuses project as a campaign worth emulating in other countries; to build the body of knowledge in using sustainability audits to integrate research, education, and campus operations. Design/methodology/approach The paper describes the Sierra Youth Coalition Sustainable Campuses project, a national student campus sustainability campaign in Canada, and how its campaign tool, the CSAF, was implemented at the University of Prince Edward Island (UPEI) to facilitate project‐based sustainability education. The paper shares the author's rationale and experience of using the CSAF to conduct UPEI's first campus sustainability audit, and of offering the CSAF for course credit. Findings The UPEI CSAF experience suggests the CSAF is a constructive tool for post‐secondary sustainability education; that it is possible to assess the ten CSAF sections (water, materials, air, energy, land; health and wellbeing, community, knowledge, governance, economy and wealth) and the total of 169 indicators in less than one academic year; and that students value the hands‐on learning, practical outcomes, and national recognition afforded by conducting a campus sustainability audit using the CSAF. Practical implications The UPEI experience can encourage other universities and colleges, in particular post‐secondary institutions in Canada, in synergizing sustainability research, education, and campus operations. Originality/value The paper will help Canadian faculty to evaluate the CSAF as a pedagogical tool and as an audit instrument. Non‐Canadian readers may glean insights for integrating student activism into higher education for sustainability. Researchers, educators, and university administrators keen to improve the sustainability performance of their institution can benefit by learning from UPEI's integrative approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.390 · 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