MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2733403018 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2017.13.63

Types of Hospital Waste and Waste Generation Rate in Different Hospitals of Faisalabad City, Pakistan

2017· article· en· W2733403018 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kashif Hameed, Omar Riaz, Muhammad Nasar-u-Minallah, Huma Munawar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare and Environmental Waste Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHospital wasteGarbageMedical wasteGovernment (linguistics)OfficerMedicineHealth carePublic hospitalBusinessWaste managementOperations managementMedical emergencyNursingGeographyEngineeringEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospital waste has been one of the major problems in underdeveloped and developing countries in recent times. The present study is an attempt to analyze hospital waste generation of Faisalabad city. Forty four hospitals were selected out of which five were public, two were semi-government, six were trust and thirty one were private hospitals with a minimum capacity of ten beds. It was very difficult to acquire exact data related to the waste generated by hospitals as these health care centers were not following the international standards to handle waste generation. The primary data were collected through questionnaire, formal and informal meetings, interviews with the hospital staff and through personal observations. The secondary data were collected from the office of the Executive District Officer Health and Environment Protection | department, Faisalabad. Data analysis showed that about 7646 kg/day waste was generated by these hospitals out of which 6529 kg (85.40%) was non-infectious and 1117 kg (14.60%) was infectious waste. The government hospitals’ waste generation rate was 1.51 kg/bed/day, semi government 1.49 kg/bed/day, trust hospitals rate was 1.29 kg/bed/day and private hospitals 0.99 kg/bed/day. The overall waste generation rate of the hospitals of the study area was 1.28 kg/bed/day. It was recommended that the hospital staff must be trained to handle hospital waste so that the garbage should not create problems to human health.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicHealthcare and Environmental Waste ManagementFrench-language works237,207