Single stream versus two stream recycling: an examination of costs and recovery rates of current programs in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2006, the approximately 12 million residents in the province of Ontario, Canada recycled almost 940,000 metric tonnes of material representing about 192 kg/household, up from 181 kg/household in 2005.The manner in which these materials are collected and processed varies across the 200 municipalities, but can be primarily broken down into single stream and two stream (fibres and containers) programs.Within the province, the debate continues over whether to go single stream or continue with two stream for the collection and processing of recyclables.Although larger programs have tended to go to single stream recycling under the promise of lower costs, higher recovery and ease for residents, recent research in Ontario suggests that single stream is not providing the direct benefits that municipalities expected.Costs are higher than anticipated.Recovery rates are not typically higher than for two stream programs.Perhaps, more importantly, product quality issues, particularly with the fibres from single stream programs have caused such problems with the paper mills, there is a strong indication that downgrades and significantly lower revenues for newspaper could be coming in the very near future.The lost revenues from higher value containers inadvertently being shipped in the fibres stream increases net costs further.This paper examines single and two stream recycling programs in Ontario, sharing recent data on the relative cost differentials (and why they exist) between the two types of programs.Finally, a potential solution to product quality that those municipalities that have adopted the single stream recycling approach have to address will be introduced.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".