Canadian Student Leaders’ Conceptualizations of Sustainability and Sustainable Universities
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
There are a growing number of university sustainability efforts, but the literature provides limited information to help universities decide if they are focused on sustainability aspects important to their stakeholders. To address this gap, Canadian student leaders’ conceptualizations of sustainable development (SD) and sustainable universities were investigated using a mixed methods approach with qualitative interviews and nested quantitative concept checklists. Themes were developed through thematic analysis and compared with support for checklist concepts to explore similarities and differences between the datasets. Conceptual variance existed between student leaders concerning sustainability; there was greater agreement between participants regarding conceptualizations of sustainable universities. Participants also believed that universities have a responsibility to lead by example and to educate both students and the greater community about sustainability. This research provides insight into the conceptualizations of a key university stakeholder, the importance of localized discussions of sustainability and encouragement for universities to engage in sustainability.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it