MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2532395459

The Effects of Municipal Waste Disposal Method on Facility Support and Diversion Attitudes and Behaviours

2016· article· en· W2532395459 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jason Bayne

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship@Western (Western University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMunicipal Solid Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaste managementIncinerationMunicipal solid wasteCompostEnvironmental scienceWaste-to-energyWaste collectionEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently in Ontario there is an increasing amount of waste and a need for solutions other than landfills to deal with this waste, with diversion rates at 48% and landfills filling up more researched is needed to explore this topic (WDO. 2014). This study uses a survey of households in Ontario, Canada to better understand if people will divert less material if they knew their waste was going to a WtE facility, levels of support for WtE facilities and expressed diversion behaviours. Participants were randomly selected from communities with different end-of-stream waste solutions with and without WtE: London which has a commercial WtE Anaerobic Digestion (AD) facility, Brampton which has WtE Incinerator, which has operated for over two decades, Toronto which exports most of their waste and has a small AD facility without WtE, and Durham which has a recently opened WtE Incinerator. The main hypotheses are that people will intend to divert less of their waste if they know their waste will go to a WtE facility while at the same time that WtE facilities will be supported over other sorts of end-of-stream facilities. While significant predictors of expressed diversion behaviour were expected to be convenience to recycle/compost and motivation to recycle/compost. Health factors were expected to be better predictors for support for WtE. The results showed that between 12 and 33% of respondents would divert less while WtE facilities are favoured six times more than non-WtE facilities. While convenience did not predict expressed diversion behaviour as expected while health and environmental concern did predict support. Perhaps more importantly it was found that a significant portion of people would divert less material ranging from 12% to 33% depending on facility type as well support for WtE facilities is high especially WtE AD facilities. Despite the potential implication that WtE will encourage even less diversion into the future currently the results show that Courtice has the best expressed diversion behaviour, but the WtE incinerator there has been operational less than a year so this could change.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship@Western (Western University)Same topicMunicipal Solid Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207