MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240564821 · doi:10.31224/osf.io/g4qz5

Estimating the global warming emissions of the LCAXVII conference: connecting flights matter.

2018· preprint· en· W4240564821 on OpenAlexaff
Miguel F. Astudillo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicConferences and Exhibitions Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon footprintEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasGlobal warmingLife-cycle assessmentFootprintClimate changeMeteorologyGeographyEcologyProduction (economics)Economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conferences are an important element of scientific activity but also one of the major causes of environmental burden. In this conference report, we analyse the carbon footprint of the annual conference of the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment, as well as some of the potential ways to reduce it. The average emissions per participant are estimated to be 952 kg CO2eq, but with a large variability due to differences in travelled distance. Results indicate that studies should use distance-dependent flight emissions to increase the accuracy of the assessment. Connection flights are found to increase emissions up to 32 % compared with direct flights, due to the increased number of take-offs and landings. A method to calculate the ideal location is proposed, which can be used to identify unreasonably distant conference locations. Some of the measures taken to reduce the impact, such as meat-free menus, had a relatively minor contribution to emissions reductions, but could be important, as scientist advocating for the reduction of environmental burden should lead by example.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicConferences and Exhibitions ManagementFrench-language works237,207