MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2529420059 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n11p135

Constructing Ontology-based Exclusive Environmental Certification Systems

2016· article· en· W2529420059 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sheng-Tsai Yu, Ying‐Chyi Chou, Wen‐Hsiang Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationEnvironmental management systemBusinessISO 14000AuditProduct certificationStandardizationEnvironmental auditEnvironmental consultingEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementOntologyIndex (typography)Computer scienceAccountingEnvironmental scienceManagementEconomicsWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1970s, governments around the world have developed environmental regulations and environmental management system (EMSs). Public and private enterprises are obligated to comply with EMSs to prevent environmental pollution. After the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) published the ISO 14001 EMS in September 1996, environmental certification became a focus of attention for enterprises worldwide. Subsequently, various EMSs, such as the ISO 14064-1 Greenhouse Gas Emission Auditing System in 2006 and the ISO 50001 Energy Management System in 2011, have been developed. Governments can demand environmental certification to enforce compliance with environmental regulations. Furthermore, environmental certification can motivate enterprises to improve environmentally relevant practices, conserve energy, and lower costs. This study establishes an ontological knowledge model of shareable and reusable environmental certification index systems. According to this knowledge model, an environmental certification system, an environmental performance index system, and a leather-industry-exclusive environmental certification system were created using the Web Ontology Language (OWL) found in the Protégé platform. The relationship between the EMSs and the performance indices was then generalized to explain the certification systems and their attainable performance indices to enterprise owners. Thus, enterprise owners can select applicable EMSs according to this EMS ontology.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business Research→Same topicEnvironmental Sustainability in Business→French-language works237,207→