Determining the Level of Environmental Sustainability Practices at Campus Dormitories Using Green Indicators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental pollution and degradation at university campuses occurred due to various daily activities by theresidents. The provision of support services in the residential and dormitory areas in the form of energy andmaterials consumption are growing into concerns nowadays. In this study, indicators of environmentalsustainability were developed to identify the level of sustainability at dormitory areas. The indicators should beable to convey information easily without losing too much information or creating too much distortion. There arenumerous aspects that need to be considered when discussing about environmental sustainability. In order toachieve the appropriate requirement for green dormitories, various references were used based from theirpractices locally and internationally. The indicators proposed for this study focused on four main environmentalsustainable categories which are solid waste management, water resources management, green office practicesand education and awareness. Each dormitory was evaluated using the proposed indicator based on theinformation provided by the dormitory representatives. The score for each indicator was summed up todetermine the performance of each dormitory which reflected their sustainability achievement. With the helpfrom the respondents who represented their dormitories, some points that may be the constraints of practicing thesustainability concepts are suggested. Some suggestions were made to improve the dormitories sustainabilitylevel. At the end of this study, all dormitories were ranked in the order of their performance based on the totalmarks obtained from the indicator calculations. From this study, it shows that KIZ scored the highest by 44marks while KTHO the lowest with 4 marks. As a conclusion, there is a huge difference in sustainabilitypractices between dormitories since there are different management approaches.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".