MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2493056848 · doi:10.1108/meq-01-2015-0018

WTE plants installed in European cities: a review of success stories

2016· review· en· W2493056848 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueManagement of Environmental Quality An International Journal · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRecycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEarth Engineering Center, Columbia UniversityChemical Institute of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsWaste-to-energySustainabilityMunicipal solid wasteWork (physics)Waste managementCleaner productionLandfill gasResource (disambiguation)DirectiveElectricityReuseEnvironmental scienceBusinessEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – Waste is a resource. Generating energy from waste instead of sending it to landfill avoids methane gas which equals 25 times CO 2 in mass. In combination with the energy efficiency thresholds set in Waste Framework Directive, this could prevent up to a further 45 million tons of CO 2 eq. per year. The purpose of this paper is to present the waste-to-energy (WTE) plants installed in ten European cities which have been selected among the most sustainable cities or among the best cities to live in. Design/methodology/approach – The work is based on literature review and a combination of several statistical data and reports that include the required data. Findings – The European Directives, along with the general thinking that wastes are resources and the effort to reduce the environmental impact in urban environment from waste management, were the driving forces. The most sustainable cities in EU considered that their sustainability is based also in energy recovery from wastes. All of them are using WTE facilities to treat a significant part of their waste in order to produce energy in the form of heat and electricity. And they do it in a very successful and environmental friendly way, as they mainly utilize the waste fractions that cannot be recycled or reused, and they do not landfill these resources. This approach is proving that the sustainable waste management cannot be achieved without WTE facilities, since a fraction of wastes consists of non-recyclable and non-reusable materials, which present significant heating value that cannot be neglected as an energy source. Originality/value – This paper presents the WTE plants installed in ten European cities which have been selected among the most sustainable cities or among the best cities to live in. This work aims to present the strong and successful relation between WTE and sustainability in the modern complex urban environment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.287 · 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