MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W32204037 · doi:10.1016/j.msec.2020.110726

Developing and Justifying Energy Conservation Measures: Green IT under Construction

2010· article· en· W32204037 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline Corbett, Jane Webster, Koray Sayili, Ivana Zelenika, Joshua M. Pearce

Bibliographic record

VenueAmericas Conference on Information Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGreen IT and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaInternational Atomic Energy Agency
KeywordsProcess (computing)Context (archaeology)CurriculumEnergy conservationExperiential learningClimate changeFace (sociological concept)Order (exchange)Knowledge managementProcess managementConservation of energyScale (ratio)Computer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessEngineeringPolitical scienceSociologyEcologyGeographySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to achieve the large-scale reductions in carbon emissions necessary to reduce the impact of climate change, fundamental technological changes will be required. In this regard, Green IT and IS may be able to play a pivotal role; however, such initiatives require new skills of IS leaders that are not sufficiently addressed in current university programs. In the process of developing practical and relatively simple energy conservation measures (ECMs) for organizations, we identify three critical challenges that organizations will face as they engage in this process: dealing with different perspectives, setting the boundaries and context of the ECM, and researching information. Based on this experience we propose that multi-disciplinary perspectives to decision-making and experiential learning be incorporated into the Green IT/IS curriculum.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmericas Conference on Information SystemsSame topicGreen IT and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207