Additional file 1 of Co-creating cultures of sustainability and co-imagining the teaching green building: the use of a participatory Photovoice process in a HPGB context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Appendix A. Select Photos From the Photovoice Study. Figure A1. Photo 1: Bicycle in the Parking Lot of the evolv1 Building (Illustrative of Q1-T1: Individual Interest and Commitment to Sustainability). Figure A2. Photo 2: Large Parking Lot at evolv1 (Illustrative of Q2-T2: Sustainability is Not Always ‘Pure’). Figure A3. Photo 3: Living Wall in the evolv1 Atrium (Illustrative of Q3-T1: Certain Building Features Clearly Function as Symbolic ‘Green Features’). Figure A4. Photo 4: Solar Panels Covering the evolv1 Parking Lot (Illustrative of Q3-T2: Symbolic Communication Often Requires ‘Standing Out’). Figure A5. Photo 5: The ‘Make Change’ Classroom in evolv1 (Illustrative of Q3-T4: Sustainability Communication and Education are Distinct From but Connected to Sustainability Symbolism). Figure A6. Photo 6: Bare Garden at evolv1 (Illustrative of Q3-T3: What is Missing or Invisible in an Environment can Unintentionally Create a ‘Negative Symbol’ for Sustainability). Figure A7. Photo 7: Seating Area in the Hub at evolv1 (Illustrative of Q4-T1: Reconsider the Function of Spaces Within and Around evolv1 to Center Sustainability and Community-Building). Figure A8. Photo 8: Cycling and Walking Trail That Connects to evolv1 (Illustrative of Q4-T3: Encourage More Sustainable Behaviours and Discourage Less Sustainable). Figure A9. Photo 9: Leaf Floating on Water (Illustrative of Q4-T4: Increase Opportunities for Social Connection, Nature Connection, Community-Building and Sustainability Leadership).
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 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.421 | 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".