arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2101.10124

An open-source tool to assess the carbon footprint of research

Jérôme Mariette·Odile Blanchard·Olivier Berné·Tamara Ben Ari
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Research institutions are bound to contribute to greenhouse gas emission (GHG) reduction efforts for several reasons. First, part of the scientific community's research deals with climate change issues. Second, scientists contribute to students' education: they must be consistent and role models. Third the literature on the carbon footprint of researchers points to the high level of some individual footprints. In a quest for consistency and role models, scientists, teams of scientists or universities have started to quantify their carbon footprints and debate on reduction options. Indeed, measuring the carbon footprint of research activities requires tools designed to tackle its specific features. In this paper, we present an open-source web application, GES 1point5, developed by an interdisciplinary team of scientists from several research labs in France. GES 1point5 is specifically designed to estimate the carbon footprint of research activities in France. It operates at the scale of research labs, i.e. laboratoires, which are the social structures around which research is organized in France and the smallest decision making entities in the French research system. The application allows French research labs to compute their own carbon footprint along a standardized, open protocol. The data collected in a rapidly growing network of labs will be used as part of the Labos 1point5 project to estimate France's research carbon footprint. At the time of submitting this manuscript, 89 research labs had engaged with GES 1point5 to estimate their greenhouse gas emissions. We expect that an international adoption of GES 1point5 (adapted to fit domestic specifics) could contribute to establishing a global understanding of the drivers of the research carbon footprint worldwide and the levers to decrease it.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jérôme Mariette, Odile Blanchard, Olivier Berné, Tamara Ben Ari. 2021-01-21. An open-source tool to assess the carbon footprint of research. https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.10124

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY↗