Untangling Cables: A Case Study of the Life & Afterlife of Digital Devices in Academic Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As researchers and academics, we investigate our bad habitus—our everyday practices around technologies for research that reinforce dynamics of extraction, consumption, and waste—in relation to the lifecycle of technology in academic research. Through qualitative interviews, observation, and visual documentation, this case study explores the consideration of sustainability in purchasing decisions, use, maintenance, and disposal processes of digital devices used in a North American university as well the institution's related policies and procedures and faculty members’ practices. Through this research we find tensions that complicate sustainability in the university research context. We develop a rich description of the complexities of creating sustainable practices, policies, and procedures in a university setting as a step towards becoming more sustainable in our work and in our institutions, and we offer a set of recommendations for our academic institution and systems that both advance and thwart efforts to create sustainable practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".