Integrating Planning Theory and Waste Management—an Annotated Bibliography
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 bibliography explores the body of literature that interfaces between professional land use planning and the management of waste. The author has been struggling to understand the dynamics of waste facility siting failures and the sustained public opposition that has become ubiquitous in Canada and the United States. Waste planners may have displayed a general ignorance or intellectual neglect regarding fundamental planning models and theory. This neglect may help us to understand why waste planning appears to be prone to failure. This bibliography provides some foundational readings in planning models that may help us link waste management and planning theory. A literature review was undertaken, with a focus on refereed journals. Three distinct types of refereed journals were examined: planning, waste management and environmental management. Articles were screened for evidence of six planning models as they relate to waste management, including the comprehensive rational, incremental, adaptive, contingency, advocacy, and participatory models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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