a contribution of 21 percent, much of which is due to publications/
books for the library and also food services at meetings etc. The CF
connected directly to the different study programs (faculties)
contributes to 47 percent of the total CF of the university. In Fig. 2
we illustrate the CF per faculty, also divided into the contributing
elements. Results show large variations, both in the total CF and in
its structure. To further compare the CF of the different faculties, we
have to normalize the result. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. The chosen
normalization factors are: the number of students registered, 60
study points, equivalent to one year of education, employees,
publication points (Norwegian system; on average 1.2 points per
scientific publication) and per million NOK of expenditure.
The results show large variations in the normalized CF. The per
student CFs varies from 0.58 tons per student in Social Science to
almost 10.8 tons per student in the Faculty of Medicine, a factor of
19 in difference. Relating the CF to the equivalent of one year of
education, 60 study points, eliminate factors such as drop-out rates
and differences in the average number of study points per student
per department, still shows a factor of 15 in difference. Since some
faculties have a higher focus on research, we also normalize the CF
to the number of employees and per publication point. The results
show similar structure, although differences are less in magnitude,
compared to per student CFs. Humanities and Social Science ranks
low in both cases, while the Faculty of Medicine again ranks the
highest, but now much more closely followed by the Engineering
and Natural Science faculties regarding CF per employee, and the
Faculty of Architecture regarding CF per publication points.
When the CF is normalized per NOKs of expenditure, results are
quite different. Note the expenditures only consider those contributing
to the CF, thus excluding expenses for salaries, etc. Results
show quite similar CF intensities across different faculties. Normalizing
by the economic value of the purchases identify the Faculty of
Medicine with the second lowest CF intensity. Reasons for this could
be that the Faculty of Medicine has a fairly low fraction of CF related
to travel, with a higher CF intensity compared to e.g. most types of
equipment. Also, the CF related to equipment has a slightly cleaner
intensity, in terms of CF per NOK, for the Faculty of Medicine. This is
because a fraction of the equipment purchased is specialized laboratory
equipment with a lower CF per economic value in our model.
Afairly high fraction of consumables, such as chemicals and other lab
a contribution of 21 percent, much of which is due to publications/
books for the library and also food services at meetings etc. The CF
connected directly to the different study programs (faculties)
contributes to 47 percent of the total CF of the university. In Fig. 2
we illustrate the CF per faculty, also divided into the contributing
elements. Results show large variations, both in the total CF and in
its structure. To further compare the CF of the different faculties, we
have to normalize the result. This is illustrated in Fig. 3. The chosen
normalization factors are: the number of students registered, 60
study points, equivalent to one year of education, employees,
publication points (Norwegian system; on average 1.2 points per
scientific publication) and per million NOK of expenditure.
The results show large variations in the normalized CF. The per
student CFs varies from 0.58 tons per student in Social Science to
almost 10.8 tons per student in the Faculty of Medicine, a factor of
19 in difference. Relating the CF to the equivalent of one year of
education, 60 study points, eliminate factors such as drop-out rates
and differences in the average number of study points per student
per department, still shows a factor of 15 in difference. Since some
faculties have a higher focus on research, we also normalize the CF
to the number of employees and per publication point. The results
show similar structure, although differences are less in magnitude,
compared to per student CFs. Humanities and Social Science ranks
low in both cases, while the Faculty of Medicine again ranks the
highest, but now much more closely followed by the Engineering
and Natural Science faculties regarding CF per employee, and the
Faculty of Architecture regarding CF per publication points.
When the CF is normalized per NOKs of expenditure, results are
quite different. Note the expenditures only consider those contributing
to the CF, thus excluding expenses for salaries, etc. Results
show quite similar CF intensities across different faculties. Normalizing
by the economic value of the purchases identify the Faculty of
Medicine with the second lowest CF intensity. Reasons for this could
be that the Faculty of Medicine has a fairly low fraction of CF related
to travel, with a higher CF intensity compared to e.g. most types of
equipment. Also, the CF related to equipment has a slightly cleaner
intensity, in terms of CF per NOK, for the Faculty of Medicine. This is
because a fraction of the equipment purchased is specialized laboratory
equipment with a lower CF per economic value in our model.
Afairly high fraction of consumables, such as chemicals and other lab
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
