MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117216662

Modern Society, Technology and Electronic Waste: Who Should Be Responsible?

2011· article· en· W2117216662 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kristian De Bellefeuille-Percy

Bibliographic record

VenueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPublic Spaces through Art
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtended producer responsibilityElectronic wasteGovernment (linguistics)BusinessDirectiveNatural resourceWork (physics)State (computer science)EngineeringNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningWaste managementPolitical scienceEconomicsLawEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic waste (e-waste) in modern society is a growing issue that creates risks by degrading natural resources, through the production of the electronic devices in question, but also at a later end-of-life stage when recycled irresponsibly; by harming individuals directly – those who partake in the recycling, but also indirectly when deadly toxins from recycling flow into water and soil sources. This thesis looks specifically at the recent progression into modern society and associated risks as can be linked to the environmental problem of e-waste in Ontario, Canada. It looks at individuals as consumers in society and examines their knowledge about the increasingly prevalent solution of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) as it should perhaps be used as a solution in Ontario. Through the use of semi-structured interviews with consumers – and considering the objective variable of government structure in Canada and Ontario that affects consumer views about e-waste; this study aims to understand what individuals think would work best in Ontario, a state-led directive or an EPR-based solution.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLund University Publications Student Papers (Lund University)Same topicPublic Spaces through ArtFrench-language works237,207