Past & Future Sustainability on Campus from a Student’s Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract\nAs a senior on campus, I have seen Embry-Riddle change drastically. My second semester I did a feasibility report with comparative analysis of sustainability on campus. An excerpt from this report includes “Embry-Riddle has a prestigious reputation for the flight program and the different engineering majors and is growing is prestige for other majors. At this time, society is very focused on “going green”, sustainability, and alternative energy. It is for this reason, Embry-Riddle should focus on the same aspects to keep up prestige.” This report was written in 2017, and I have had the opportunity to see Embry-Riddle make sustainable changes. At the time I wrote the report, there was no program or initiative in place to turn off classrooms at the end of the day, or computers in the lab, and the Environmental Committee of the SGA had been dissolved. Since this, I have joined the Progress Committee and have had the opportunity to be one of many “green voices” of the student body, this resulted in the revival of the Environmental Committee.\nMy focus in the committee has been the pursuit of the installment of the Food Recovery Network. The Food Recovery Network is a nationwide network of student college chapter recovering food on their campus. What this entails, is taking food that is prepared but not served, and would otherwise be thrown away, diverting it from the landfill, and donating to a local community shelter.\nIf food waste was a country, it would be the third largest producer of greenhouse gases.\nThe Embry-Riddle Daytona chapter is preparing for our first food recovery at this time, teaming up with the local Halifax Shelter.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".