Organized and informal recycling: social movements contributing to sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A paradigm shift recognizing the contribution of inclusive resource recovery to global sustainability is urgently needed.Informal and organized community recycling create social, economic and environmental benefits.Inclusive door-todoor recycling builds awareness for responsible consumption, redirects resources, diminishes environmental impacts from waste disposal and most importantly it contributes to the generation and redistribution of income and hence can tackle poverty reduction.Gathering, separating and selling recyclables has become a survival strategy for the excluded population in most cities.Very few cities in the world have incorporated recycling cooperatives and associations in waste management and only few policies have been developed to support this approach.The few experiences, however, highlight that besides redirecting solid waste into production streams, recycling also builds citizenship and contributes to creating community.Despite these benefits to the environment and to the community at large the recyclers are usually disregarded.As a result of their marginalization, the full potential of the informal and organized recycling industry is not harnessed.Theory on governance, social economy and resource management provide the grounding for the definition of a new concept for inclusive waste management that goes beyond waste disposal addressing responsible consumption and global sustainability.The paper discusses experiences from Latin American recycling networks and case studies on innovative public policies in Brazil.Waste as a resource enhances global sustainability and locally creates job opportunities.Stigmatization and prejudices against the recyclers are to be overcome and the real environmental services provided by this population are yet to be fully recognised.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".