Look to Europe? Examining the Relevance and Applicability of the European Experiences with the Use of Waste to Energy as a Treatment Method for Residual Waste for the Province of Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explores the development and use of waste to energy (WTE) technologies in Europe and in the Province of Ontario, Canada. As the quantity of waste generated has continued to increase in industrialized countries, the need for alternative waste management methods to reduce the dependency on landfill and to recover the resource in the waste has also increased. Many European countries, including Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany, have developed WTE facilities to achieve these goals, whereas the use of WTE in Ontario has been extremely limited. However, the current shortage of residual waste management capacity in Ontario has sparked debate over the potential for the use of WTE. This thesis examines the driving forces that have promoted the use of WTE in Europe and the barriers that have prevented its use in Ontario. From this investigation the main lessons learned from Europe's use of WTE were identified as well as the areas of knowledge that are required in Ontario to foster the discussions over the potential for WTE technologies. This research analyses the European lessons learned to determine if they are applicable and relevant for satisfying the knowledge gaps in Ontario. As well recommendations are made for ensuring that the discussions over residual waste management and the potential use of WTE in Ontario move forward successfully resulting in crucial actions being taken.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".