Indicators of Sustainable Development in Higher Education Institutions:A Case Study of Concordia University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of “sustainability” is at the forefront of many research concerns and is at an increasing rate being incorporated into the activities of post-secondary institutions. Sustainability has become such an important issue that it has become part of the “marketing” of an institution. Sustainability self-assessment tools have been developed to guide sustainable developments and allow institutions to display their performances across a range of sustainability measures. Given the growing use of these indices among institutions of higher education, this thesis investigates to what extent “sustainability” practices are adopted in a university-wide setting, and how conscious university administrators are that such practices may translate into higher enrolments; or, serve to attract those prospective students seeking a more “green” learning environment. Using Concordia University as an example, this case study asks a sample of university administrators how sustainability in higher education impacts the university’s reputation, prestige, and rank, and then examines how Concordia University plans to pursue sustainable development. The research reported here shows that about 54% of Concordia’s research centres and 61% of Senate-recognized centres have a sustainable research focus. Interestingly, all of Concordia’s “sustainability-centric” research centres have been developed since 2009. From 2012 to 2014, 80% of the main advertisement campaign focused on sustainable research developments. In terms of the future, results of this research show that the university is mapping its student activities and sustainable assets for more effective developments, while continuing to improve its position in its sustainability self-assessment, and its attempt to create a sustainable minded culture. It is clear from this research, the thesis concludes, that Concordia University definitely believes investing in its sustainability will empower its mission and vision, and is pursuing it through unique ways.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".