Facilitators & barriers to organic waste and phosphorus re-use in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cities have the capacity to play a key role in resource and pollution management through their decisions about organic waste. Often overlooked, but nevertheless essential, is the role that cities can play in increasing phosphorus (P) recycling because cities are consumers of large amounts of P-dense food and producers of vast amounts of P-rich waste. Most cities do not take advantage of this potential, seeing P as simply another part of organic waste to be disposed of elsewhere. For example, in Montreal, Canada, only 6% of P in waste is currently recycled. We used semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders (19), participant observation (over 1.5 years), and document review to identify key barriers and facilitators for Montreal to achieve a high level of organic waste recycling through composting. We found that a provincial law mandating 100% recycling of organic matter has great potential to facilitate increased P recycling. However, lack of a shared vision about the role of government, private sector, and citizens in producing high quality compost from waste products is a barrier that inhibits this potential. Cultural inertia, lack of knowledge, and lack of infrastructure also act as barriers to increasing composting in Montreal. Urban agriculture could be a means to overcome some of these barriers as it currently benefits from strong citizen support and is both a consumer and producer of compost. However limited access to potential garden space and training and diversity in desired fertilizer qualities among gardeners somewhat limit this potential. Investing in increasing social capital, and specifically in connecting urban agriculture to waste management objectives, and in linking key stakeholders to co-create shared visions about how to produce high quality compost may act as a stepping stone towards increasing Montreal citizens’ knowledge about, and support for, increasing organic waste and thus P 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".