Reporting of and policy on greenhouse gas emissions from air travel at Canadian universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to explore the extent and characteristics of Canadian university reporting of and policy regarding greenhouse gas emissions from air travel. It identifies current approaches’ details and limits and recommends improvements. Design/methodology/approach The study developed questions and considerations for analysing reporting and policy, reviewed university documents and webpages and contacted university staff. Findings Roughly 20% of Canadian universities report flight emissions. Figures vary by factors of over 100 even when normalized or expressed as a percentage of institutional emissions. Inter-university differences in data collection and emissions calculation practices shape reporting. Canadian university air travel emissions cannot be meaningfully compared. Few universities have flight emissions reduction policies; those that do leave relevant decisions to individuals. These approaches do not respond adequately to the emissions reduction challenge. Originality/value This study is the first comprehensive survey of university flight emissions reporting for any country. Its original framework highlights calculation’s complexities. It recommends standardizing reporting process information disclosure, reporting flight emissions as a range and faculty leadership of emissions reduction efforts.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".