Managing municipal solid waste from a system perspective: A comparative study of Dalian, China and Waterloo, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In China, one of the challenges on managing solid wastes is how to realize waste reduction, reuse and recycling while maintaining rapid development, leading to a demand for an Integrated Solid Waste Management (ISWM) approach. A practical way to improve ISWM in developing countries is to learn from successful experiences in developed countries. Hence, systematic comparisons that reflect the complexity of ISWM systems in different contexts are needed. This paper takes a system perspective to compare and contrast two cases, the Region of Waterloo in Canada and Dalian in China, exploring the reasons for the different management approaches between the two cases. The results show that in some aspects, differences between the two waste management systems are tightly linked to their respective social and economic contexts, which can hardly be changed, whereas other differences can be attributed mainly to management strategies and tools. Suggestions are provided on waste planning, the development of waste diversion programs and waste treatment industries, the design of new programs, and the role of the local government. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it