MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016520513 · doi:10.1139/s05-036

Compost environmental protection standards in Canada

2006· article· en· W2016520513 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bo Ge, Daryl McCartney, Jehan Zeb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicComposting and Vermicomposting Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompostEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionBusinessMaturity (psychological)Environmental planningEnvironmental qualityTRACE (psycholinguistics)Environmental resource managementWaste managementPolitical scienceEcologyEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper was to summarize and compare Canadian environmental protection standards for compost. The paper describes the national and provincial organizations responsible for compost quality control in Canada. Discussions were organized under the key environmental protection criteria: maturity, trace elements, time–temperature requirements, pathogens (indicator organisms), foreign matter, and trace organics. A total of six organizations (three across Canada and three provincial) currently have distinct standards. Recent efforts to harmonize the standards have reduced the disparity between the various organizations. Key words: compost, Canada, standards, environmental protection, criteria, solid waste management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicComposting and Vermicomposting TechniquesFrench-language works237,207