MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259021105 · doi:10.4337/9781785361241.00027

University sustainability reporting: A review of the literature and development of a model

2017· review· en· W2259021105 on OpenAlex

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

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSustainability in Higher Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySustainability reportingSustainability organizationsQuality (philosophy)Work (physics)Conceptual modelSample (material)BusinessAccountingAccountabilityEmpirical researchPublic relationsPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many universities have made a commitment to improving the sustainability of their campuses. However, only a small number report to stakeholders on their sustainability performance to allow accountability, and the quality of the reports issued varies widely. This chapter reviews studies of sustainability reporting by universities and identifies the factors that have been associated with the decision to report on sustainability and the quality of those reports. Most of the existing empirical work on sustainability reporting by universities is case-based. We critique this literature and identify areas in need of conceptual and empirical clarification. We provide a model, hypotheses, constructs, and proxies to support large-sample research on sustainability reporting by universities.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.283 · 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