MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225859655 · doi:10.33137/ijournal.v7i1.37896

The carbon footprint of podcasts

2021· article· en· W4225859655 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Caroline Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueThe iJournal Student Journal of the Faculty of Information · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon footprintActive listeningConsumption (sociology)Energy consumptionEnvironmental economicsComputer scienceCarbon fibersFootprintMultimediaEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasAdvertisingBusinessEngineeringSociologyGeographyEconomicsElectrical engineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Podcasting is a large and swiftly growing industry that entertains, informs, and connects massive audiences worldwide. Yet the environmental impacts of podcasting have received little attention. This paper examines the carbon footprint of podcasts through the energy usage of both distributing and consuming podcasts in Canada. Research into the carbon footprint of media consumption remains relatively sparse. Podcasts merit particular attention due to their unique patterns of digital distribution and consumption. Using statistics from major podcast websites and market research firms as well as data on device energy intensity, this paper finds that total distribution of podcasts within the first 30 days of new episodes generates approximately 99,000 kg of carbon dioxide. Within Canada, yearly podcast listening through smartphones, computers, and smart speakers emits approximately 90,000,000 kg of carbon dioxide. Further research may reveal wider impacts of podcasting on listener behaviour, broader media consumption, and other carbon-intensive activities that are complemented, compounded, or substituted by podcasts.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe iJournal Student Journal of the Faculty of InformationSame topicRadio, Podcasts, and Digital MediaFrench-language works237,207