An investigation into sustainable artwork for the new SUB
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The problem that this report seeks to address is the feasibility of installing an art piece in the new Student Union Building (SUB). The goal of the art piece is to promote sustainability within the UBC community and to visitors to the SUB. In making a recommendation, a triple-bottom-line assessment was conducted to determine the potential economic, environment, and social impacts of the art piece. The project began with preliminary research into examples of environmentally themed and sustainably created art, and studies discussing the impact of art on society. The research was exclusively obtained from search engines, both scholarly and non-scholarly. It provided many ideas into possible art piece designs and implementations, but lacked in information about the social, environmental, or economic impacts of the pieces discussed. As a result, a survey was conducted in which the project group solicited opinions from the general public regarding a sustainable art piece in downtown Vancouver. As well, a local artist by the name of Sharon Kallis was contacted for an interview about her work in environmentally themed art, in order to gain more understanding about the economic cost of her works. From the research, survey, and interview, a number of conclusions were drawn. It is strongly recommended that an art piece be installed in the new SUB. It was found that public art display can be an effective means of promoting sustainability. Furthermore, it was concluded that if the UBC waste stream can be used as the sole source of material for the art piece, then the economic cost and negative environmental impacts of the piece can be greatly reduced in scale. In addition, hiring an artist to work with students, within view of the public, provides a low cost solution to creating public interaction with the piece. As a result, the potential for promoting sustainability outweighs the minimal environmental impact and economic cost of such a project. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".