MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2275574574 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n2p43

Introducing an Integrated Municipal Solid Waste Management System: Assessment in Jordan

2016· article· en· W2275574574 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMunicipal solid wasteLife-cycle assessmentEnvironmental impact assessmentEnvironmental scienceUrbanizationBusinessWaste managementEnvironmental protectionPopulationEnvironmentally friendlyEnvironmental planningNatural resource economicsEngineeringEconomic growthProduction (economics)EcologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="Body-Masterspaper">Municipal solid waste management (MSWM) is considered one of the challenging environmental problems in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Municipal solid waste increased significantly due to rapid population growth and fast urbanization, change in lifestyles and consumption patterns. Major problems associated with MSWM are poor collection rates, open dumping, and improper recycling that pose environmental damages. An environmental impact analysis of Jordan’s MSWM was required to look into opportunities for bringing in an integrated solid waste management (ISWM). In this paper, we analyzed the country’s MSWM as a case study in the MENA region. Our goal was to identify the most environmentally-friendly and economically-viable alternative to the current situation. Based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), we evaluated the potential environmental and economic impacts of 10 MSWM scenarios adopting different waste treatment technologies. Indicators of the environmental performance used were four impact categories of EDIP 2003 assessment method: Climate Change (GWP 100a), Acidification Potential, Eutrophication Potential and Human Toxicity. The results showed that improving the current MSWM with 72% of sanitary landfills with energy recovery and 28% of dry recyclable materials was the best scenario in terms of environmental impacts and economic cost. The cost recovery of this scenario was 155% compared to an average of 55.5% of the current cost recovery. The study also revealed that the materials recycled could be increased by 33.5% if the waste separation was applied at the source of generation.</p>

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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