Higher Education Institution–Community Partnerships: Measuring the Performance of Sustainability Science Initiatives
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 The enterprise of sustainability science extends beyond the academy to address pressing environmental issues through collaboration. It coincides with trends in higher education institutions (HEIs) towards an expanded mission for addressing societal challenges as well as greater accountability. In this paper, we aim to establish an instrument for assessing the performance of sustainability science initiatives in HEIs. The performance of three HEI–community partnerships for sustainability science in Ontario, Canada (the Brock-Lincoln Living Lab, the Excellence in Environmental Stewardship Initiative, and Niagara Adapts) were examined using the HEI–Community Partnership Performance Index (HCPPI). Our preliminary results suggest that the HCPPI is a reliable, valid, and easy-to-administer tool for accurately assessing the performance of HEI–community partnerships for sustainability science. Incorporating systemic performance assessments into HEI–community partnerships promotes accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement. It also serves as a vital feedback mechanism by fostering reflection, adaptation, and learning—critical components to sustainability science.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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