Independent Study on Changing Student behaviour to Increase Energy Sustainability and Efficiency at the Macdonald Campus of McGill University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The governance of Biosphere Reserves is a subject of vital importance to the administrators, local stakeholders, and proximate communities directly impacted by the activities of such organizations. Based on an analysis of several comparator Reserves across Canada, the author of this project has developed a framework that maps out the characteristics of a formal governance structure by examining in detail the means by which these bodies achieve the three core functions of Biosphere Reserves (conservation, sustainable development, and capacity-building). Two divergent governance structures are identified and described. The “corporative” governance model can be seen as a centralized administrative structure whose links to external actors are managed in a top-down fashion by the executive committee. Stakeholder involvement is restricted to a subset of the potentially affected groups in society, external interests are given defined roles to play within the organization, and programs and policies are implemented to actively affect the legal and regulatory environment in which the Reserve finds itself. Formal, top-down relationships are pursued with research institutions, and specific educational initiatives are created and implemented by Reserve management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".