MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151401867 · doi:10.1177/0270467606295193

A Description and Analysis of the German Packaging Take-Back System

2006· article· en· W2151401867 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Science Technology & Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural safety and regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllowance (engineering)BusinessGermanProduct (mathematics)Packaging and labelingRaw materialWaste managementCommerceEnvironmental economicsEngineeringOperations managementMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The German packaging ordinance is an example of legislated extended producer responsibility (also known as product take-back). Consumers can leave packaging with retailers, and packagers are required to pay for their recycling and disposal. It can be considered to be successful in reducing waste, spurring the redesign of packaging to be more environmentally sustainable, and increasing refilling and recycling. The exception is waste packaging made of plastics, which faces the problems of export due to lack of markets for recycled products within Germany, the lack of capacity for recycling, the allowance for energy recovery within the ordinance, and the manufacturers’ focus on back-to-feedstock rather than back-to-plastics as a solution. This article looks at the ordinance and its effects to consider why this take-back program worked better than others.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.183 · 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