Leticia Antunes Nogueira

The popularization of artificial intelligence (AI) represents a significant business opportunity for private actors developing tools and services aimed at research and higher education. Academic libraries are often at the receiving end of sales pitches for new tools and could benefit from guidance on how to assess them. Libraries’ assessment of tools is a valuable service to library stakeholders, many of whom may not have sufficient time, the necessary competencies or the inclination to explore the landscape of innovations promising to support their information needs and research endeavours. This article offers concrete guidance concerning what to consider when assessing whether to adopt, endorse and/or invest in innovative information and research tools that make use of AI. The main areas proposed for reflection concern (a) tool purpose, design and technical aspects; (b) information literacy, academic craftsmanship and integrity; (c) ethics and the political economy of AI.

This chapter explores societal tipping points in energy transitions in the Arctic through the case of the phasing out of coal mining on Svalbard. The economy of the region, which has high geopolitical importance in the Arctic, was founded based on extractivism. More than a century ago, coal mining not only consolidated as Svalbard’s main industrial activity, but also crystalized in the region’s identity and in Norway’s strategy for sustaining its presence on the archipelago. International agreements and debates concerning green transitions, in combination with fluctuating coal prices and ageing infrastructure, have provoked the emergence of various narratives concerning the future of the archipelago. These narratives entail both low-carbon alternatives for the local economy, and alternative energy sources to power human life on Svalbard. This chapter examines these narratives, focusing on the interplay between demographic and socio-economic developments of the past 20 years. Several kinds of societal tipping points can be observed, from politico-economic to demographic and socio-cultural tipping points. The question remains, however, whether the Svalbard case also exemplifies tipping points in the biophysical dimensions of social-ecological systems. This will in large part depend on the ability to find viable energy alternatives that harmonize with regional geopolitical security.

The emergence and proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) tools has left the realm of science fiction and the province of computer science research and has reached the everyday activities of academics and various support staff. AI promises to automate and facilitate a range of research tasks and increase scientific productivity, and can thus be expected to raise new questions and dilemmas that might challenge the systems of accountability currently in place to safeguard academic integrity. This poster presents preliminary results of an analysis of seven prominent ethical guidelines (international and Norwegian): the Vancouver protocol, ALLEA guidelines, NENT and NESH guidelines, professional codes of ethics from IFLA, ALA, and the Norwegian Union of Librarians. EBLIDA and LIBER were consulted, but do not offer their own ethical guidelines. The main research question is: to what extent do current ethical guidelines support researchers and librarians in dealing with ethical questions brought about by the proliferation of new AI tools? The concern that emergent technologies tend to challenge values, norms, and practices in academia is not new. For example, ALLEA (2017) acknowledges that the values and principles they lay out are “affected by social, political or technological developments and by changes in the research environment” (p.3). Nonetheless, only the Vancouver protocol (updated in May 2023) provides explicit recommendations on AI; it essentially prescribes that authors/reviewers disclose if and how they used AI tools. The other documents, ranging from 2008 to 2022, mention neither AI nor the possibility of automation technologies in academic/library work. Despite the absence of advice on AI, the analysis revealed interesting issues on ethical guidelines and emergent technologies. ALA (2017) makes extensive recommendations about social media, both as a tool for libraries’ own work and as a demand from patrons who require their expertise. Similar needs for new competencies and responsibilities can be expected from AI. Also, the Norwegian Union of Librarians (2008) encourages the adoption of free software, open standards, and open source codes; this can gain new momentum with the emergence of proprietary tools and algorithms, particularly if they are trained on public data curated by i.a. libraries. Ethical guidelines are general; they state a commitment to certain values and how they should guide certain tasks and practices. They do not prescribe how concrete tools should be employed. In this regard, the current ethical guidelines do offer a sound basis upon which new ethical questions can be assessed. Yet, unlike other types of tools employed in research and library work, AI poses challenges to things that are taken for granted by ethical guidelines, such as what constitutes information, or whether non-human entities can be considered authors, sources, or neither. In conclusion, it might be beneficial to revise ethical guidelines, less so because AI requires concrete recommendations, and more because they challenge substantive assumptions upon which guidelines rely. Also, new possibilities afforded by AI might put pressure on certain values, such as reproducibility and academic craftsmanship. Assuming that academia/library communities consider these important to preserve, it might be beneficial to reaffirm these values in light of the changing landscape.

O estudo analisou as limitações na promoção da sustentabilidade no recolhimento de embalagens vazias de agroquímicos. Para tanto, utilizou-se como suporte o Sistema Campo Limpo, dados do inpEV, IBGE, IBAMA e referências bibliográficas. Os resultados apontaram que a coleta de sobras de defensivos agrícolas favorece os grandes produtores rurais, a maioria vinculados à sojicultura, enquanto pequenos produtores se situam marginalizados nessa rede. Embora tal foco permita altas taxas de coleta, os efeitos na agricultura familiar representam uma deficiência importante. Por um lado, take-backs de embalagens de agroquímicos são cruciais para a gestão adequada de resíduos, por outro lado, eles podem institucionalizar o uso de agroquímicos e legitimar a sua crescente aplicação. Consequentemente, sustentabilidade na produção de alimentos é um assunto complexo e multidimensional, e exige um esforço conjunto entre a sociedade civil, poder público e produtores.

The study discusses the limitations of take-back schemes for agrochemical packaging in promoting sustainability. Through the case of inPEV and the Campo Limpo System, the analysis focused on data from IBGE, IBAMA, and secondary sources. Results show that the system’s organization favors large agricultural producers, particularly in the soybean chain, while small producers are marginalized. Although this strategy allows for high rates of collection, a crucial shortcoming refers to environment and health related effects on family farms. This is embodied in the dilemma that take-back schemes for agrochemical packaging are necessary in terms of adequate waste management, but can create conditions that institutionalize the use of agrochemicals and legitimize their increasing application. Consequently, sustainability in food production systems is a complex and multidimensional affair, which require coordinated effort of civil society, public authorities, and producers.

This article explores the emergence of waste valorization innovations to investigate how they interact with incumbent waste management systems and what roles markets play in the process. We build upon innovation ecosystems as an analytical framework and investigate empirically three cases distributed across the waste hierarchy pyramid: (i) upcycling of discarded fishing gear; (ii) reusing constructions and recovering demolition waste; and (iii) establishing a biomass‐based district heating facility. Our cases indicate that waste valorization initiatives are deeply entangled in incumbent waste management systems and that markets alone appear to be insufficient to drive innovations in waste valorization. Our analysis also points to a relationship between the position of waste innovation in the waste hierarchy and the presence and effectiveness of markets. Markets function better when resources already have some economic value, which is what waste valorization processes seek to obtain. When the environmental value is higher than the economic value, other mechanisms are needed to enable innovations, markets, and sustainability transitions. Support from the public sector in various capacities, from international regulation to demand shaping, seems to be essential for circular economy transitions. Understanding issues such as how waste innovations reach the market and how markets for waste resources function is imperative for circular economy transitions.

The problem of marine litter represents a significant global challenge and illustrates the harmful consequences of an economic model that is based on disposability. The seafood sector is not only among the culprits, but is also among the most affected by this threat to the marine environment. Earlier research has pointed to fishing gear take‐back schemes as a measure to mitigate the problem, and policymakers have embraced the idea. The Norwegian scheme for beverage containers has been hailed as a benchmark for the application of Extended Producer Responsibility. Through the lens of business ecosystems, we draw parallels between the existing take‐back scheme for beverage containers and the latent system for fishing gear to answer the question: “What would it take to establish a take‐back scheme for fishing gear? ” We elaborate upon four factors that are well established for beverage container take‐back schemes, but lacking or unclear in the case of fishing gear: (i) politico‐institutional support, (ii) the system's value proposition, (iii) the system integrator, and (iv) operational factors (i.e., a network of collection points and procedures, and material variety and complexity). Our findings highlight that when innovations are not based on the usual market mechanisms, unconventional conceptualizations of value itself and how value is mapped and distributed are required. Meaningful engagement of the private sector depends upon either explicit articulation of value capture or policy instruments to enforce responsibility; both are currently either unclear or lacking in the context of fishing gear.

Meaningful engagement between scientists and stakeholders has been extensively promoted as a tool for increasing public participation in science, as well as for increasing the relevance and impact of scientific research. Yet, co-production of knowledge entails practical challenges, since participants with diverse worldviews, expertise and interests are expected to collaborate. These obstacles have not received enough attention, as current debate has focused more on the merits and principles of this approach. We address this gap by reflecting upon our experiences with both practical and methodological challenges stemming from research projects based on co-production of knowledge, thereby exposing what we see as common but under-discussed obstacles, as well as guidance for tackling them. We highlight the role of social scientists in the process not merely as facilitators but also as agents that promote critical reflection and safeguard the salience, credibility, and legitimacy of both the process and its outputs.