Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent trend towards closure and reclamation of municipal landfills, and in particular, smaller rural sites, is driven by economic and regulatory requirements. Improved economies of scale associated with larger operations encourage closure of small landfills and centralization of landfilling operations into fewer, larger sites. In addition, the 1993 Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks "Landfill Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste" has resulted in closure of smaller problem sites rather than the more expensive alternative of upgrading the facilities to meet the new criteria. Closure of municipal landfills presents a formidable reclamation challenge involving multiple objectives including 1) isolating refuse, 2) minimizing leachate production, 3) preventing erosion, 4) collecting and disposing landfill leachate and landfill gas, 5) returning the land to its original productive state, particularly on lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve, 6) issues associated with application of biosolids as a topsoil amendment and, 7) closure and post closure environmental monitoring to continually ensure that landfill impact on its surroundings are kept at acceptable levels until stabilization or, for approximately 25 years post closure. This paper draws on Sperling Hansen Associates' (SHA's) recent experience in the design of closure systems for the Hartland Landfill, located 30 km north of Victoria, and the Savona Landfill, located 40 km east of Kamloops, the Squamish Landfill and the Whistler Landfill. To illustrate the key issues associated with implementing practical closure and reclamation of landfills in British Columbia, a detailed case history of the Savona Landfill Closure is presented.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".