MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155548838 · doi:10.1243/09544070260340826

Evaluation policies and automotive recovery options according to the European Union Directive on end-of-life vehicles (ELV)

2002· article· en· W2155548838 on OpenAlexaff
M R Johnson, M H Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile Engineering · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRecycling and Waste Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDirectiveReuseLegislationEuropean unionExtended producer responsibilityLegislatureBusinessAutomotive industryHazardous wasteProduct (mathematics)Environmental economicsEngineeringInternational tradeEconomicsWaste managementComputer sciencePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The European Union (EU) Directive on end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) is a newly ratified legislative policy that will change the management of ELVs in Europe by forcing auto manufacturers worldwide to take financial responsibility for the proper environmental handling of their vehicles at the product's end of life (EOL). Essentially, the new policy encompasses extended producer responsibility (EPR) by requiring hazardous materials to be removed from the vehicle and specific recovery targets (focusing on reuse and recycling) to be met. This paper presents the application of an analysis tool that uses demanufacturing optimization on a dismantled vehicle to evaluate the economics and material destinations within the imposed requirements of the new legislation. The results of the current study provide insight into the future problems and opportunities that will be brought forth by the new Directive.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations44
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D Journal of Automobile EngineeringSame topicRecycling and Waste Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207