MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411031238 · doi:10.1145/3736647

Sustainability Literacy and Repair: A Case Study of Effective Sustainability Pedagogy in Electrical and Computer Engineering

2025· article· en· W4411031238 on OpenAlexaff
Esther Roorda, Emily Shilton, Sathish Gopalakrishnan

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Journal on Computing and Sustainable Societies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSustainability in Higher Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityLiteracyEngineering ethicsPedagogySustainability scienceSocial sustainabilitySociologyEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Addressing the rapid increase in global e-waste production, and the embodied carbon of consumer electronics requires a shift towards a more sustainable computer engineering paradigm centered around “slow consumption” practices like repair. We argue that effective sustainability education is a critical part of effecting this change. Through surveys and interviews with students, repair experts, and community members, we investigate existing attitudes and levels of sustainability literacy among engineering students, and outline opportunities for meaningful teaching and learning. We develop, deliver, and evaluate a university-level course centered on electronic repair, drawing on evidence-based pedagogical strategies for meaningfully building sustainable development competencies. The aim of the course was to build both practical repair skills and critical sustainability competencies, and to bring students into conversations and longer term collaboration with the broader community. Our findings indicate that the course successfully resulted in shifts in student attitudes and that students reported a commitment to ongoing community engagement and personal action. The findings underscore the need for meaningful integration of environmental literacy into engineering curricula, through implementation of evidence-based pedagogical strategies, in order to train future engineers with an understanding of the relationship between their work and the environment.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Journal on Computing and Sustainable SocietiesSame topicSustainability in Higher EducationFrench-language works237,207