Home and community composting for on-site treatment of urban organic waste: perspective for Europe and Canada
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
As a result of urbanization and economic prosperity, which has accelerated the generation of municipal solid waste (MSW) along with its organic fraction, the management of MSW is a challenge faced by urban centres worldwide, including the European Union (EU) and Canada. Within a concept of waste recovery, the source separation and on-site treatment of urban organic waste (UOW) can resolve some of the major economic issues faced by urban centres along with the environmental and social issues associated with landfilling. In this context and in a comparison with the traditional landfilling practice, this paper examines on-site UOW composting strategies using a combination of centralized composting facilities, community composting centres and home composting. This study consisted of a feasibility and economic study based on available data and waste management costs. The results indicate that on-site treatment of UOW using practices such as home and community composting can lower management costs by 50, 37 and 34% for the rich European countries (annual GDP over US$25,000), the poorer European countries (annual GDP under US$25 000), and Canada, respectively. Furthermore, on-site composting can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40% for Europe and Canada, despite gas capture practices on landfill sites. However, the performance of home composters and the quality of the compost products are issues to be further addressed for the successful implementation of UOW on-site composting.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it