MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121378377 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v4n1p36

Exploring the feasibility of Cradle to Cradle (product) design: perspective from New Zealand Scientists

2011· article· en· W2121378377 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Reay, Judith McCool, Andrew Withell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Design and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityEcological footprintProduct (mathematics)Sustainable designEcological designProduct designSustainable developmentPerspective (graphical)Environmental ethicsSociologyEnvironmental resource managementEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEcologyPolitical scienceEngineeringEnvironmental scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research project explores the feasibility of a Cradle to Cradle approach to sustainable product design in New Zealand. Relatively recently a framework for sustainable design was proposed by environmental chemist Michael Braungart and architect William McDonough who suggest that the current paradigm of “cradle to grave” product development is unable to provide a solution to the world’s current ecological crisis, and a “cradle to cradle” framework is more appropriate. They suggest that their approach, based on examples from nature, ensures that all human activities have a positive ecological footprint, capable of replenishing and regenerating natural systems, as well as guaranteeing that we are able to develop a world that is culturally and ecologically diverse. A sample of New Zealand scientists were asked to explore the underlining science and feasibility of the Cradle to Cradle design framework in an attempt to determine the potential of this approach to the design of sustainable products. Analysis of interview data indicated that sustainability is a complex and multi-faceted concept, especially with regard to practical application of ecological considerations, and product design. There is considerable environmental and economic potential in the successful application of cross-discipline collaboration between science and design in addressing the need for products that contribute to sustainable solutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.013
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.144 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicSustainable Design and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207