MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6960797316 · doi:10.14288/1.0374283

CBP : UBC SEEDS

2018· article· en· W6960797316 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Collections · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDispose patternIncentiveGarbageOrder (exchange)Work (physics)Municipal solid wasteZero wasteLimitingSustainability

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The University of British Columbia (UBC) has been one of the leaders in sustainable practices on university campuses across Canada. Over the past few years, UBC has been working towards becoming a zero waste campus. One of the most limiting factors that is working against the overarching goal of becoming zero waste, is the fee structure that is currently in use for ancillary buildings hosted on campus. The fee structure charges ancillary buildings less for disposing of their garbage waste stream, than their organics waste stream. This provides an internal incentive for buildings to dispose of more garbage than organics to minimize their bottom line. In order to eliminate this disincentive program, the fee structure needs to be reevaluated. It is essential to focus on industry best practices before introducing a new fee structure on UBC campus, because ancillary buildings are able to opt out of UBC waste management in order to use a private waste disposal company. There are a number of cities and university campuses who have set applicable precedent when it comes to waste management practices, including the fee structures used in specific jurisdictions. San Francisco, Seattle, City of Vancouver, University of Western Ontario and the University of Victoria were all investigated in order to establish some industry best practices for achieving zero waste. Within the municipalities, residential waste collection rates were analyzed for trends that would incentivize zero waste practices. San Francisco has in place a discounting model that offers a decrease in rates for customers with a higher waste diversion rate, which has proven to be effective. Seattle offers discounts for bulk waste disposal of each of their waste streams, with the exception of recycling which is free pickups for residents. The City of Vancouver – including Burnaby – has limited garbage disposal to a biweekly pickup schedule, while maintaining their weekly organics and recycling pickups. Universities have introduced a number of educational programs on campuses to encourage students to take an active role in waste management on campus. The new model proposes offering a discount to buildings that have higher waste diversion rates, based on the size of the bins of different streams of waste. In order to effectively introduce this strategy, more metrics should be measured in monthly waste audits. The introduction of barcodes on waste disposal bins should allow for measures of each waste stream to be simple and inexpensive, as only scanning and tracking technology would need to be purchased. As well, there will be an immediate decrease in garbage pickups, inspired by Vancouver and Burnaby reducing the garbage pickups to a biweekly manner. Thirdly, fines for high rates of contamination should be introduced, especially for that of contaminated organics bins. The combination of the above three processes should advance the movement of UBC campus towards zero waste. Moving forwards, it is essential to recognize that the industrial composting machinery is reaching the end of its life. In order to replace the machine, research must be conducted to ensure that UBC purchases the most efficient industrial composter. As well, more educational programming should be rolled out to the primary waste sorters on campus – the students – in order to increase the waste diversion rate and decrease the contamination in all the waste streams. 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.”

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,206
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,294

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,001
Communication savante0,0080,003
Science ouverte0,0030,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,7940,669

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,255
Écart entre enseignants0,238 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen Collections→Même sujetGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals→Travaux en français237 207→