Comparative Cost Benefit Analysis of Different Solid Waste Management Scenarios in Basrah, Iraq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid Waste Management (SWM) system in Basrah has deteriorated recently to the point that only limited waste collection is undertaken in certain urban areas and disposal is largely to uncontrolled dump sites. In this study, the technical, economical, and environmental aspects of three SWM scenarios were investigated aiming to compare the scenarios and select the most appropriate one for implementation. Scenario 1 was to consider waste disposal into a sanitary landfill. Scenario 2 added waste transportation to transfer station before disposal to a sanitary landfill. Scenario 3 considered waste sorting, recycling and composting followed by landfill disposal in an integrated treatment disposal facility. The current open dumping practice was considered as the baseline scenario. According to economic analysis, the benefits from the revenues of selling the produced recyclables and compost did not improve the ranking of scenario 3. However, scenario 3 has gained positive recognition due to the environmental benefits of waste recycling. Therefore, final recommendations were in favour of scenario 3, which has been approved by the UNICEF, as well. Currently the recommended scenario is under implementation in Basrah, Iraq.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".