University Mission Statements and Sustainability Performance
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper examines the relationship between university mission statements and sustainability practices by institutions of higher education. We examine mission statement constructs and the degree to which higher educational institutions meet specific sustainability criteria in line with the College Sustainability Report Card. Our sample consists of 347 universities from the Sustainable Endowment Institute's (2011) Green Report Card. Previous research suggests that mission statements are essential for superior organizational performance outcomes. We examine the relationship between university mission statement content and sustainability practices. Findings indicate that the greater the number of specific terms used in the university mission statements, the higher the statistical likelihood that those universities had higher sustainability ratings. Findings also indicate that private institutions and nonreligious‐affiliated institutions are more likely to include sustainability constructs in their mission statements than colleges and universities with religious affiliation and public institutions. Several propositions to guide future research are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it