Fuel consumption estimation for kerbside municipal solid waste (MSW) collection activities
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
Fuel consumption during seven different daily activities of a garbage co-collection truck and a normal packer truck was estimated from the trucks' global positioning system (GPS) data and fuel consumption records. The co-collection and the normal garbage packer consumed approximately 1.8 L and 1.26 L of diesel per km, respectively, while travelling within the collection areas. Using these fuel rates and the GPS data, the results show that both types of trucks consumed more than 60% of daily total fuel while actually collecting waste on the route. The average daily fuel consumption was 2-4 times higher on rural routes compared to urban areas. Fuel consumption varied significantly depending on the housing density along the collection route. In addition, approximately 5-6 times as much fuel was required to collect a kilogram of waste on a rural route compared to an urban route. Potential methods of reducing fuel consumption were examined. Consistent use of optimal collection routes could potentially save an average of 7.5 L of fuel per truck per day. Reducing the loading time per stop was also studied, but the results suggest that this method does not have significant potential to reduce fuel consumption.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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