MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530887172 · doi:10.1177/0734242x16670000

Characterisation of excavated fine fraction and waste composition from a Swedish landfill

2016· article· en· W2530887172 on OpenAlexaff
Yahya Jani, Fábio Kaczala, Charlotte Marchand, Marika Hogland, Mait Kriipsalu, William Hogland, Anders Kihl

Bibliographic record

VenueWaste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandfill Environmental Impact Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersKauno Technologijos Universitetas
KeywordsFraction (chemistry)Environmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceMoistureMass fractionOrganic matterTotal organic carbonZincHeat of combustionChemistryWaste managementMineralogyMetallurgyCombustionMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present research studies the characterisation and the physico-chemical properties of an excavated fine fraction (<10 mm) from a Swedish landfill, the Högbytorp. The results showed that the fine fraction represents 38% by mass of the total excavated wastes and it contains mainly soil-type materials and minerals. Higher concentrations of zinc, copper, barium and chromium were found with concentrations higher than the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for contaminated soil. The found moisture and organic contents of the fine fraction were 23.5% and 16.6%, respectively. The analysed calorific value (1.7 MJ kg −1 ), the potential of CH 4 (4.74 m 3 t −1 dry matter) and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) (5.6%) were low and offer low potential of energy. Sieving the fine fraction further showed that 80% was smaller than 2 mm. The fine represents a major fraction at any landfill (40%–70%), therefore, characterising the properties of this fraction is essential to find the potential of reusing/recycling or safely redisposing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations73
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaste Management & Research The Journal for a Sustainable Circular EconomySame topicLandfill Environmental Impact StudiesFrench-language works237,207