Campus sustainability audit research in Atlantic Canada: pioneering the campus sustainability assessment framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".