Sustainability Reporting By Universities In Indonesia Abstract
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
This study aims to describe sustainability reporting practices by universities in Indonesia by knowing the reporting channel used by universities and the conformity of information disclosure with GRI G4 indicator and campus sustainability assessment instrument. This study uses a framework with 73 indicators based on GRI and a campus sustainability assessment instrument to analyze information disclosed by universities in Indonesia. The results of the analysis show that the level of disclosure of sustainability information conducted by universities in Indonesia is lower when compared with universities in Canada and Lithuania. Disclosure of information undertaken by universities in Indonesia remains limited in scope, and no universities disclose sustainability information in an integrated report. Abstrak: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan praktik pelaporan keberlanjutan oleh perguruan tinggi di Indonesia dengan mengetahui saluran pelaporan yang digunakan oleh universitas dan kesesuaian pengungkapan informasi dengan indikator GRI G4 dan instrumen penilaian keberlanjutan kampus. Penelitian ini menggunakan kerangka kerja dengan 73 indikator berdasarkan GRI dan instrumen penilaian keberlanjutan kampus untuk menganalisis informasi yang diungkapkan oleh universitas di Indonesia. Hasil analisis menunjukkan bahwa tingkat pengungkapan informasi keberlanjutan yang dilakukan oleh universitas di Indonesia lebih rendah bila dibandingkan dengan universitas di Kanada dan Lithuania. Keterbukaan informasi yang dilakukan oleh universitas di Indonesia masih terbatas dalam ruang lingkupnya, dan tidak ada universitas yang mengungkapkan informasi keberlanjutan dalam laporan terpadu.
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 | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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