Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In January, 2008, Apple, Inc., was flying high from its continuing series of product launches and innovations in the computer and consumer electronics market. At the recent Macworld 2008 trade show, Steve Jobs, co-founder and CEO, introduced the sleek new MacBook Air ultra-portable laptop along with a host of other new products, services, and updates (Krazit, 2008, January 15). Apple's recently launched iPhone reached 4 million units in sales during its first six months on the market, and the iPod digital music player did well during the holiday sales season. Apple's stock price had also ended 2007 near $200 a share, a record high for the company. Despite this momentum stemming from technological innovations, a report from Greenpeace harshly criticized for its environmental practices, and ranked far behind some of its fiercest competitors such as Nokia, Dell, and HP (How the companies line up--Nov 07, 2007, December). Greenpeace was one of the most recognized and active environmental activist groups in the world (see Figure 1 for the organization's mission statement). Given Apple's reputation as a cutting edge leader in stylish product design, the potential blow to Apple's brand name challenged Steve Jobs and Apple's management team to consider the best way to respond to Greenpeace without giving the organization even more of the publicity it sought. Greenpeace's Initial Report and Apple's Response In August, 2006, Greenpeace released its first Guide to Greener Electronics (Greenpeace, August 25, 2006; Donoghue, 2006, August 29). The guide was designed to assess a selection of top electronics and technology companies on their environmental policies and practices, and rated companies on their use of toxic chemicals in, and recycling of, their products. ranked 11th out of 14 top technology companies with a score of 2.7 out 10, behind competing companies such as Nokia, Dell, Sony, and Hewlett Packard. The speed at which the story circulated was dizzying. La Barrie saw that some of the stories, perhaps with reporters rushing to make deadlines, had sensationalized the events, such as the headline Novice Survives after Sky-Dive Strapped to a Dead Man, which appeared on the front page of the Hilton Head (South Carolina) Island Packet newspaper (Garfield 2009). Hilton Head Island was well over 200 miles from Chester. Greenpeace's criteria called for companies to eliminate hazardous substances from products and take back or recycle products once they became obsolete. Greenpeace drew attention to the fact that scored poorly on almost all criteria. In particular, scored badly with regard to the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), and was criticized for not establishing a schedule for the elimination of these chemicals in its product lines. Nokia was at the top of the ranking partly because it eliminated the use of PVC in its products, while Dell established a clear commitment to and timeline for the elimination of toxic chemicals in its products. Greenpeace challenged to put as much effort into the environmental impact of its products as it did into other elements of product design. In response, an representative touted the company's environmental track record and criticized the criteria Greenpeace had chosen: has a strong environmental track record and has led the industry in restricting and banning toxic substances such as mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, as well as many BFRs. We have also completely eliminated CRT (cathode ray tube) monitors, which contain lead, from our product line. (Donoghue, 2006, August 29; Williams, 2007: 41) Greenpeace Escalates Its Criticism In September, 2006, Greenpeace launched a Green My Apple campaign to raise awareness of Apple's environmental shortcomings. The campaign included a web site which mimicked Apple's own advertising look and included pictures and stories of toxic and discarded electronics being handled by children in India and China (Williams, 2007). …
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".