MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modélisation et simulation de la gestion et du traitement des déchets ménagers

2002· article· en· W2287678323 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Debray

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironnement Ingénierie & Développement · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean unionComputer scienceOperations researchWelfare economicsBusinessEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of household waste is evolving rapidly under the regulatory pressure, which was initiated in France by the 1992 law. Traditionally based on standard collections and landfilling, it now involves new treatment techniques such as incineration, recycling or composting. When adapting their waste management system, local communities are facing difficult decisions. Choices have to be made regarding the treatment techniques and waste collection schemes. But it is often difficult to evaluate the technical, environmental and financial consequences of these choices. For that reason, a computer simulation system was developed at the Ecole nationale supérieure des mines de Saint-Etienne. Its main features are presented together with examples of simulation results. Among the situations that can lead to the use of this computer tool we can mention the comparison of different treatment scenarios on a financial or environmental basis or the assessment of decisions such as the union of waste treatment syndicates. The proposed model is based on the combination of individual models of treatment units and of mater and money fluxes. Each of these models has to be chosen according to the simulation goals in a database which can be increased with time to better reflect the diversity of situations. La gestion intégrée des ordures ménagères, qui se développe en réponse aux évolutions réglementaires issues de la loi de 1992, se traduit par une diversification des filières de traitement et une complexification du système de gestion associé. Pour aider les collectivités territoriales à appréhender cette complexité nous avons entrepris de développer un modèle de simulation dont nous présentons ici les principaux composants ainsi que quelques exemples de résultats de simulation. Parmi les objectifs qui peuvent justifier l’utilisation d’un tel outil, nous pouvons citer la comparaison de différents scénarios de gestion sur une base financière ou environnementale ou l’évaluation de l’impact de décisions telles que l’adhésion de communes à un syndicat sur l’évolution des flux reçus et émis par les installations de traitement implantées sur un territoire. Le modèle proposé repose sur un assemblage de modèles linéaires d’unités de traitement et de flux de matière et financiers. Chacun d’entre eux doit être choisi en fonction des objectifs de la simulation parmi les éléments d’une base de données. Celle-ci propose déjà un ensemble de modèles orienté vers l’évaluation des coûts de traitement. Elle doit maintenant être complétée pour répondre à de nouveaux objectifs de simulation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironnement Ingénierie & DéveloppementSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207