MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ISO 14000 Environmental Management Standards: Their Relation to Sustainability

2005· article· en· W2123208287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Elefsiniotis, David G. Wareham

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSustainable Building Design and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsISO 14000SustainabilityContext (archaeology)Environmental management systemRelation (database)EngineeringCorporationEnvironmental resource managementBusinessComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to explore the link between sustainable development and the ISO 14000 Environmental Management Series of Standards, with particular reference to the ISO 14001 standard. In order to do this, it was decided to evaluate the ISO 14000 series in the context of a large engineering facility; namely, the Canadian provincial Crown Corporation of Manitoba Hydro. The ISO 14000 series is in principle an effective system to manage an organization’s self-prescribed environmental goals; however, its main limitations are that it does not require the demonstration of environmental performance and it is sometimes difficult to interpret and apply due to ambiguous language. The paper closes with speculations that despite these shortcomings, the essence of the ISO 14000 series of standards is in sympathy with the notion of sustainability.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and PracticeSame topicSustainable Building Design and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207