MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7134741951

University of British Columbia Food System Project 2012

2012· report· en· W7134741951 on OpenAlexaffabout
Samuel Chendan, Leigh Gaffney, Ashley Lin, Charlene Tang

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2012
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSignageSustainabilityGarbageFood systemsFood wasteBaseline (sea)CategorizationRebranding
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first attempt by the University of British Columbia Food System Project to engage franchises in working towards a sustainable campus. The problem identified illustrate that franchises on campus are currently exempt from following the various strategies and initiatives set forth by the university to curb unsustainable practices. Therefore, through a Baseline Inventory of Socially and Ecologically Responsible Food Options, the team was able to evaluate the sustainability of food options at three franchises – Triple O’s, Tim Hortons and Starbucks Coffee. Although Tim Hortons and Triple O’s have implemented composting bins on-site, the current resources in place are ineffective in guiding correct waste sorting behaviour. The team collaborated with Triple O’s to categorize their packaging materials into compostable, recyclable and garbage items. Templates were created for Triple O’s to consider; however, they expressed desire to design their own signage. To demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed intervention, temporary signage were put up at Triple O’s; surveys conducted at the restaurant during peak hours were compared to pre-intervention observations. Through the survey, improvements were noted after signs were in place. Recommendations to stakeholders involved are given based on data and observations collected. 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0720.010

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→French-language works237,207→