MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1490310362 · doi:10.1596/1813-9450-5767

Municipal Solid Waste Management in Small Towns: An Economic Analysis Conducted in Yunnan, China

2011· book· en· W1490310362 on OpenAlexaff
Hua Wang, Jie He, Yoonhee Kim, Takuya Kamata

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Bank eBooks · 2011
Typebook
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaSolid waste managementEconomic analysisEnvironmental planningGeographyBusinessMunicipal solid wasteAgricultural economicsWaste managementEconomicsEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipal solid waste management continues to be a major challenge for local governments in both urban and rural areas across the world, and one of the key issues is their financial constraints. Recently an economic analysis was conducted in Eryuan, a poor county located in Yunnan Province of China, where willingness to pay for an improved solid waste collection and treatment service was estimated and compared with the project cost. This study finds that the mean willingness to pay is about 1 percent of household income and the total willingness to pay can basically cover the total cost of the project. The analysis also shows that the poorest households in Eryuan are not only willing to pay more than the rich households in terms of income percentage in general, but also are willing to pay no less than the rich in absolute terms where no solid waste services are available; the poorest households have stronger demand for public solid waste management services while the rich have the capability to take private measures when public services are not available.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Bank eBooksSame topicMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207