Domestic waste management as a means for life quality improvement and environmental protection in the city of Karditsa: citizens' viewpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project refers to the investigation of opinions of Karditsa municipality citizens with respect to waste management and cleanness in their town. About 57.7 % of the citizens state that they are unaware of the municipality’s cleanness regulation, while with respect to information about waste management, 31.2 % claim to be suffi ciently informed, and 31.4 % have poor information. However, most citizens fi nd the cleanness services provided to be satisfactory (58.4%). Citizens who evaluate the cleanness services as being ‘satisfactory to very satisfactory ’ live at a distance of up to 50 m from the waste containers, and state that the containers are emptied more than 3 times a week, while those who claim to be ‘disappointed to very disappointed ’ are located at a distance more than 50 m away from the containers and claim that waste is collected 1–3 times a week. Almost half of the citizens are aware of containers being moved, and usually dispose of waste in the morning and evening, while the vast majority (80.5%) denied leaving waste outside the containers when these are empty. Finally, around half of the citizens are unaware of the amount they pay through municipal taxes for cleanness and waste disposal.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".