MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502709728 · doi:10.3390/resources4030434

Stakeholder Perceptions of Unit Based Waste Disposal Schemes in Ontario, Canada

2015· article· en· W1502709728 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueResources · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderEnforcementUnit (ring theory)BusinessHousehold wasteEnvironmental economicsEconomicsEngineeringPolitical scienceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines stakeholder perceptions of pay as you throw schemes (PAYT) in Ontario, Canada. Using a combination of panel and semi-structured survey data from provincial municipalities, focus is placed on analyzing: (a) the effects of PAYT systems on municipal recycling rates and program costs (b) stakeholder perceptions on the perceived effectiveness of PAYT policy (c) how locality affects PAYT program costs and affect municipal recycling rates and (d) the impact of Ontario’s “one Blue Box per household” provision on PAYT schemes. The results of the analysis show that while the implementation of PAYT schemes do increase municipal recycling rates, there are opportunities for further improvement. In Ontario, the effectiveness of PAYT policy is impaired by inconsistent enforcement, administrative burden, and the inadequate capacity of household recycling bins (“blue bins”).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.182 · 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