MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2337891584 · doi:10.14288/1.0108583

A life cycle analysis and impact assessment on styrofoam collected through the Reduction and Recycling Pilot Program

2014· article· en· W2337891584 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ida Li

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Policies and Emissions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReduction (mathematics)Life-cycle assessmentEnvironmental scienceOperations managementComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Reliability engineeringEngineeringBusinessMathematicsProduction (economics)Economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Focusing on the User and Disposal Phases, this report assessed the life cycle impact of Styrofoam waste collected through the UBC Vancouver Styrofoam Reduction and Recycling Pilot Program. In the User Phase, participating buildings had different experiences with various vendors, including seeing the companies’ improvements in package reduction and positive reactions to campaigning efforts. In the Disposal Phase, three current cases of waste management for Styrofoam are assessed and compared in terms of the economics, environment, and social impacts. Recycling is a three-staged process: collected Styrofoam materials from UBC are first shipped to WCS Recycling to be made into #6 pellets, which are then sent to Merlin Plastics for purification and further processing. The resultant Polystyrene #6 pellets will be shipped to an injection-molding company which produces virgin-blended recycled plastic products that are sold internationally. Re-use is the case for UBC Okanagan, as a partnership with Turtle Tanks was developed to incorporate Styrofoam waste into household septic systems. Landfill is a last and most inefficient option. Three alternatives are discussed in this report: 1. Expansion of the current recycling program; 2. Reduction from the source by working with vendors; 3. Explore partnership for re-using Styrofoam boxes; 4. Incineration. Each of these alternatives is evaluated upon four criteria of feasibility, environmental impact, cost, and sustainability of initiative. The alternatives are not exclusive from each other and could be implemented in an integrative fashion. The report concludes with several suggested areas for further research. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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)0.000
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 score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicEnvironmental Policies and EmissionsFrench-language works237,207