Hybridizing Sustainability Metric Applications with Local Stakeholder Inputs: A life cycle assessment with a co-design demonstration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainability standards have been criticized as being complex and overlapping, with unclear metrics and messy timelines—all of which have led to sustainability shortfalls. As part of the special issue on addressing sustainability metric shortcomings, we develop a hybridizing protocol for sustainability standards that elicits community stakeholder ideological predispositions, preferences, ratings, and heuristics and injects them into a prioritized, vetted metric in order to reduce immediate and longer-range life cycle impacts of corporate operations in the local ecosystem. We demonstrate our method using a quasi-field experiment, conducted by expert intermediary facilitators, in which community members co-design oil sands wetland reclamation and their choices are integrated into life cycle assessments (LCAs) of wetland designs and remediation products. Hybridizing LCA with local co-design not only generates an effective wetland-material choice, but reduces life cycle impacts and increases the likelihood of community acceptance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".