MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605177178 · doi:10.17705/1cais.04003

The Sustainability Imperative in Information Systems Research

2017· article· en· W2605177178 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Seidel, Pratyush Bharati, Gilbert Fridgen, Richard T. Watson, Abdullah Albizri, Marie‐Claude Boudreau, Tom Butler, Leona Chandra Kruse, Indira R. Guzman, Helena Karsten, Habin Lee, Nigel P. Melville, Daniel Rush, Janet Toland, Stephanie Watts

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the Association for Information Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityRelevance (law)Information systemField (mathematics)Green computingKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsManagement scienceComputer sciencePolitical scienceSociologyBusinessEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports on a panel discussion at the pre-ICIS 2015 Workshop on Green Information Systems on the current state and future perspectives of SIGGreen—the Association of Information Systems’ special interest group on green information systems—and of green information systems (green IS) research in general. Over the past years, IS scholars have made important contributions advancing our knowledge about how information systems can contribute to solving problems associated with the degradation of the natural environment. However, it would appear that many view green IS as just another research topic in the IS field and not a very important one at that. This is questionable because sustainability is too important to be relegated as a footnote in the greater scheme of things. We suggest that the IS community should embrace sustainability as a core research imperative and integrate sustainability-related dimensions to research in theory and method, in rigor and relevance, and in the areas one chooses to research. We provide some actionable recommendations on how we as IS researchers and, indeed, how the IS field could help society and business interests make the transition to a sustainable world.

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)0.105
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1050.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0080.075
Scholarly communication0.0250.045
Open science0.0020.016
Research integrity0.0100.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations61
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207