LOOKING FORWARD, PUSHING BACK AND PEERING SIDEWAYS: ANALYZING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL SYMBIOSIS
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
This paper compares and contrasts two different forms of interorganizational relationships that deal with the production and movement of waste: industrial symbiosis and supply chains. Industrial symbiosis reuses, recycles and reprocesses byproducts and intermediates within the system of organizations, whereas conventional supply chains reduce waste within manufacturing processes and reuse end‐of‐life products. Although both these models address waste, there is surprisingly little consideration of industrial symbiosis within supply chain research. Yet, industrial symbiosis has much to offer the study of sustainable development within supply chains. Industrial symbiosis emphasizes community, cooperation and coordination among firms, which serves to protect the environmental integrity, social equity and economic prosperity of the region — all hallmarks of sustainable development. However, such tight integration among a diverse set of organizations is difficult to jump start and difficult to maintain. In this paper, we also outline the challenges and offer some ideas on how to address these challenges. We ground our insights from interviews with firms in the Sarnia‐Lambton region of Ontario, Canada. This region is home to over 130,000 people, and has a strong physical infrastructure and social structures that have facilitated symbiotic relationships among local businesses.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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