MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070779803 · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.027

Sinks as limited resources? A new indicator for evaluating anthropogenic material flows

2014· article· en· W2070779803 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ulrich Kral, Paul H. Brunner, Pi‐Cheng Chen, Sih-Rong Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Indicators · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council CanadaBulgarian National Science FundAustrian Science FundEuropean Commission
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceScarcityEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Besides recyclables, the use of materials inevitably yields non-recyclable materials such as emissions and wastes for disposal. These flows must be directed to sinks in a way that no adverse effects arise for humans and the environment. The objective of this paper is to present a new indicator for the assessment of substance flows to sinks on a regional scale. The indicator quantifies the environmentally acceptable mass share of a substance in actual waste and emission flows, ranging from 0% as worst case to 100% as best case. This paper consists of three parts: first, the indicator is defined. Second, a methodology to determine the indicator score is presented, including (i) substance flows analysis and (ii) a distant-to-target approach based on an adaptation of the Ecological Scarcity Method 2006. Third, the metric developed is applied in three case studies including copper (Cu) and lead (Pb) in the city of Vienna, and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in Switzerland. The following results were obtained: in Vienna, 99% of Cu flows to geogenic and anthropogenic sinks are acceptable when evaluated by the distant-to-target approach. However, the 0.7% of Cu entering urban soils and the 0.3% entering receiving waters are beyond the acceptable level. In the case of Pb, 92% of all flows into sinks prove to be acceptable, and 8% are disposed of in local landfills with limited capacity. For PFOS, 96% of all flows into sinks are acceptable. 4% cannot be evaluated due to a lack of normative criteria, despite posing a risk for human health and the environment. The examples demonstrate the need (i) for appropriate data of good quality to calculate the sink indicator and (ii) for standards, needed for the assessment of substance flows to urban soils and receiving waters. This study corroborates that the new indicator is well suited as a base for decisions regarding the control of hazardous substances in waste and environmental 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcological IndicatorsSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207