MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Review of Waste Tire Reuse& Recycling in China —current situation, problems and countermeasures

2010· article· en· W1840952692 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hui-zhi Wang, He Xu, Xue-jian Xuan

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReuseChinaCircular economyWaste managementResource (disambiguation)ScarcityWaste recyclingEngineeringConstruction wasteResource scarcityBusinessEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article first expounds the current situation on waste tire generation and recycling in China. Then i t analyses the existing problems and causes in the industry of waste tire recycling. Finally, it proposes countermeasures and suggestion on promoting a healthy waste tire industry. These strategies include accelerating the speed of drawing up regulations on waste tire reuse and recycling management, completing encourage policies and mechanism of waste tire resource recycling industry, developing adequately the influence of China Rubber Industry Association (CRIA) and China Tire Retreading And Utilization Association (CTRA), and etc.. China has an abundant resource of waste tires and recycling potential. And it will be of great significance to mitigating the scarcity of rubber resource, improving ecological environment, developing circular economy and building resource-efficient society in China if we can reuse and recycle waste tires properly and form a healthy waste tire industry. Key words : waste tires ; circular economy ; ecological environment ; reuse & recycling

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciencesSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207