Assessing the future potential of waste flows – case study scrap tires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our planet has limited resources, and due to our increasing demands on a variety of products, we rely on the availability of primary and secondary resources.This paper will give an overview on the required information received from processing secondary resources.It is possible to assess the quality of the generated material fl ows with this information.By describing the material characteristics and the material fl ow uncertainties, a forecast of the material's future potential to replace primary resources may be possible.Future prospects of the quality of secondary resources, including their input and output properties may be helpful to assess their potential to substitute primary resource for example.It is the contribution of the paper to point out the necessity of knowing the whole life cycle of a product to gain the best available end-of-life option.The case study of scrap tire recycling gives an example of assessing the material's properties.Modeling recycling processes offers the potential of identifying the processing steps with regard to the main material fl ows and emissions to reduce the environmental impact and improve the economics.Material fl ow analysis and life cycle assessment can support the determination of the future potential of waste streams entering the recycling process.Some material fl ows are appropriate to replace primary resources without loss of quality.But other materials are only useful for products with minor quality.Some materials are made to never separate by itself, and therefore pure material fl ows are impossible to achieve.A model that considers different material properties of material fl ows helps to evaluate the global recycling potential.Therefore, material qualities have to be defi ned to make an assessment of sustainable management of secondary resources possible.A concept of developing a model that addresses this issue is presented in this paper.The aim of the model is to predict secondary material fl ows that are of equal quality of primary material fl ows.These material fl ows are then suitable to substitute primary resources which results in global savings in resources, both material and energy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".