An investigation on Ontario’s non-hazardous municipal solid waste diversion using trend analysis
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
Non-hazardous waste disposal and diversion trends in Ontario from 1996 to 2010 were identified using parametric and non-parametric statistical methods, and the temporal variability of its waste diversion practices were examined. Ontario’s diversion was sensitive to waste diversion policy and residential diversion programs. Total waste diversion increased by 85% in 14 years. Results suggested that waste minimization may be more effective than recycling on Ontario diversion rates. Programs targeting non-residential sectors are recommended, specifically for smaller businesses with limited waste management budgets. Linear regression and Mann-Kendall tests detected significant increasing trends for residential waste diversion. In contrast, non-residential diversion had a decreasing trend using linear regression. A significant upward trend (S = +10) was found for Ontario’s total waste diversion using Mann-Kendall tests. Highly significant upward trends were observed for plastic and organic recycling. Mann-Kendall tests were found more appropriate for waste trend analysis in the present study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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