MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063251030 · doi:10.1139/a04-006

Strategies for the municipal solid waste sector to assist Canada in meeting its Kyoto Protocol commitments

2004· article· en· W2063251030 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Adrian K. Mohareb, Mostafa Warith, Roberto Narbaitz

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaste managementGreenhouse gasMunicipal solid wasteIncinerationLandfill gasKyoto ProtocolEnvironmental scienceBiodegradable wasteEnvironmental engineeringWaste treatmentLife-cycle assessmentEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Government of Canada has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, committing to a 6% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 1990 levels during the commitment period of 2008–2012. To attain this target, emission reductions throughout many sectors must be achieved. The waste sector can assist Canada in reducing GHG emissions to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. In 2001, the waste sector generated 24.8 megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) from landfill gas (LFG) generation, wastewater treatment, and incineration. Emissions from the transportation of solid waste were not considered, and are seen to be small. Several strategies for reducing GHG emissions from solid waste are analyzed. Source reduction decreases the amount of material being generated, thus reducing from the source any emissions that might be related to the life cycle of the material. Recycling can reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of virgin material being processed, avoiding life cycle emissions. Landfill gas collection for energy recovery can reduce methane (CH 4 ) emissions from organic wastes in landfills, and the Government of Canada's Climate Change Plan has considered this strategy. Anaerobic digestion converts some of the organic matter in the municipal solid waste (MSW) to both CH 4 and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), where the CH 4 can be used to generate power, while composting converts some of the organic fraction to CO 2 . Both of these processes produce a soil conditioner as their residue. Waste incineration reduces MSW volume and can generate power, displacing generation from fossil fuels. An integrated approach, considering these techniques where appropriate, can succeed in reducing emissions from the solid waste sector. Policy choices such as extended producer responsibility, minimum recycled content laws, and LFG capture criteria would increase the impact of solid waste management on GHG emissions. Key words: climate change, Kyoto Protocol, municipal solid waste, source reduction, recycling, landfill gas capture, anaerobic digestion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207