An Investigation into the Application and Environmental Impact of the UBC Mugshare Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to evaluate the viability of the Mugshare program at the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver campus, the program should be analysed using a triple bottom line assessment involving environmental, social, and economical factors. The scope of this report is analyzing the public awareness of the program, the economic feasibility of the current deposit, and environmental impacts of using reusable stainless steel mugs. The methods used in this analysis are gathered from academic articles, and trusted web resources. The topics mentioned above are examined in detail, with a slight emphasis on evaluating the presently used stainless steel mugs. The goal of the Mugshare program is to reduce the waste created on campus by the incorrect disposal of single-use paper cups. Currently, the Mugshare program seeks to do this by lending out 14 ounce reusable stainless steel mugs with a five dollar deposit. Stainless steel mugs are presently the best option for such a program, with long-term durability and little to no long-term adverse health hazards, however, the high energy consumption and emissions associated with production make it necessary to examine alternatives to ensure this is the best choice for the Mugshare program. If stainless steel mugs will continue being used by the Mugshare program, the cost, design, and monitoring will need to be improved to further benefit the program. Currently, the deposit to participate in the program is five dollars, however if the program is going to continue to be economically feasible, such a deposit should be raised. On a related note, the design of the mug currently incorporates a rubber bottom, with a plastic lining. Such lining and rubber bottom should be removed to reduce the deterioration of the mug. A potential issue for the Mugshare program is the monitoring and tracking of the mugs. Efficient tracking methods such as implementing a barcode into the design of the mug, and linking said barcode to UBC student cards are outlined in this report. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".