MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Carbon Footprint of the Global Hotel Companies: Comparison of Methodologies and Results

2011· article· en· W2083437108 on OpenAlex
Danuta de Grosbois, David A. Fennell

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueTourism Recreation Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon footprintFootprintBusinessClimate changeCarbon fibersEnvironmental economicsMeasure (data warehouse)Natural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceEconomicsGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon footprint is becoming a widely used measure of an organization's contribution to climate change. However, despite a growing number of international standards and guidelines, there is still no consistent and widely agreed-upon methodology for assessment. The current practice of carbon footprint reporting in many industries is not well known and very ambiguous. This paper reports on a study of 150 of the largest hotel groups in the world to see how they assess and report their carbon footprints. The paper concludes that carbon footprint reporting in the hotel industry is scarce, and even for large companies calculations are unclear, not assured and not comparable.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.218
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.170 · 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