Preliminary Insights on Household Food Wastage in Lebanon
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food losses and waste, generated across the whole food chain, implies serious environmental, social and economic costs. Lebanon suffers from lack of information about food waste. There is no national legislation related to food waste (FW). The paper provides insights on household FW in Lebanon with a focus on perceived importance of FW, attitude towards FW, quantity and value of food wasted. An online survey was conducted in the period January-March 2015 with 215 adult consumers. Sample is not gender-balanced, rather young and with high education level. Household’s planning and shopping activities are important predictors of FW. Fruits, vegetables, and milk and dairy products are the most wasted food products. Most of the respondents have a good understanding of “use by” label while just the quarter know exactly the meaning of “best before” label. About 42% of respondents declare that their households throw away at least 250 g of still consumable food each week. The economic value of FW generated each month is more than 6 United States dollar (US$) for 80% of respondents’ households. Lebanese households show a positive attitude regarding FW and are willing to change behaviour to reduce it. An integrated policy mix is needed to foster transition towards zero-waste consumption patterns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it