An investigation into optimal modes of campus food delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The construction of the new UBC Student Union Building (SUB), expected to be completed by 2015 offers an opportunity for AMS Food and Beverage to introduce changes to various aspects of food services offered to UBC students. One of these many changes has to do with the introduction of a campus-wide food delivery system. This research aims to investigate optimal modes of campus food delivery and offer recommendations. Focusing mainly on a sustainable vehicle to use for delivery, a few requirements were made clear from the start. A suitable delivery vehicle should: have 100 cubic feet of cargo space, be able to withstand Vancouver’s weather conditions and seasons, and have an operational range that can cover the whole of UBC’s point grey campus. This research cites both primary and secondary sources for information on vehicles currently available in North America as well as existing research into the environmental and economic aspects of various vehicle types. With the aim to evaluate the environmental, economic, and social implications of a potential delivery vehicle, this investigation begins by looking into existing research to compare the environmental impacts of vehicles that run on various fuels, full electric vehicles (EV), and hybrids. Following this, the search for a suitable vehicle can be narrowed down to just one class of vehicle – In this case, a full EV by Canadian Electric Vehicles Ltd – the Might-E Truck. The cost effectiveness of the candidate vehicle is then analyzed with initial costs, maintenance and energy costs among the parameters taken into account. A logistics analysis follows, making sure the vehicle fits the physical and range requirements followed finally by an investigation into the social implications of the chosen vehicle on members of the UBC campus community. 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".